Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners voice unease over approving 2025 budget amendments before final adoption
Summary
Several commissioners said they were uncomfortable moving fiscal year 2025 budget amendments to full board before the county executive's veto window and final budget adoption had fully closed.
During consideration of multiple capital and IT items, several commissioners expressed concern about approving amendments tied to fiscal year 2025 before the county’s budget was definitively finalized.
"I'm incredibly uncomfortable with approving fiscal year 25 budget amendments already when the budget isn't technically been finalized yet," Commissioner Kraft said during the discussion, describing the timing as a "gray area." He asked if fiscal-year-2025 items could be separated and delayed until January to allow the budget to be finalized.
Ben, a county staff member presenting the items, said the projects in question had been in design and that finance had suggested presenting both 2024 and 2025 amendments so the board could see the totality of costs. "They suggest to put both budget amendments in today so you can see the totality of it," Ben said on the record.
Commissioner Sabatini suggested using 2024 capital improvement funds if a surplus existed and asked whether finance had sent a representative to explain the fund balances. Other commissioners echoed the need to avoid repetitive debates; Commissioner Nard said the issue would recur across about nine or ten agenda items in coming meetings.
Commissioner Brown said he did not anticipate a veto from the Executive’s office and said the board could revisit items at the full board meeting if a veto occurred. "If there is a veto, we'll be able to take action if the board wants to at our full board meeting in December," Brown said.
Several commissioners requested that finance staff attend future sessions to answer funding-source questions in real time. After discussion, commissioners agreed to move the items to full board; however, multiple speakers noted their discomfort and requested follow-up clarification from finance.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer finance documentation and for finance-department staff to be present at subsequent meetings to address timing and funding questions in person.
