Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Budget 2025 26 topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Orange County supervisors hear $10.8 billion recommended budget, take straw votes and set June 24 adoption

Orange County Board of Supervisors · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County leaders on June 10 heard a $10.8 billion recommended budget that staff described as balanced but subject to state and federal uncertainty; the board took nonbinding straw votes on program restores and expansions, asked staff to review sheriff overtime versus hiring, and set final adoption for June 24.

Orange County supervisors on Tuesday heard a detailed presentation of the CEO's recommended $10.8 billion budget for fiscal year 2025–26 and took nonbinding straw votes that move the proposal toward formal adoption on June 24. County finance officials said the plan preserves reserves and core services while pointing to near‑term risks from pending state and federal funding decisions.

"You will see a balanced budget that meets the planned objectives for the county for the upcoming year," Kim Engleby, the county chief financial officer, said during the presentation. Engleby and Joanna Cosma, the county's budget and finance director, described program allocations that make community services the largest program at about 36 percent of appropriations and noted roughly $1.2 billion in discretionary net county cost.

The presentation described staff work this budget cycle to align requests with board priorities and to assess potential impacts from the state's May revise and federal proposals. Joanna Cosma said departments submitted 196 individual budgets that were reviewed against five‑year plans and current projections. "The recommended budget being presented today is balanced and was compiled based on strong budget and fiscal policies," she said.

Board members emphasized several priorities during discussion. Supervisors asked for more detail on the treasurer‑tax collector's request for restored positions and whether two positions would continue to be funded through contracting; they also pressed departments about sheriff overtime and whether hiring full‑time deputies would be more cost effective than continuing high overtime levels. The CEO's office told the board it would return with analysis comparing overtime and regular staffing costs.

Public commenters during the hearing urged investments in in‑home supportive services (IHSS), higher pay and benefits for caregivers, and a more inclusive public engagement process for the budget. "The IHSS program makes that possible," Tanya Ferrucci, an IHSS provider, told the board during public comment, urging supervisors to prioritize funding that allows seniors and people with disabilities to remain at home.

In program‑level action the board took a series of staff‑recommended straw votes and approvals: program 1 (public protection) restore/expand items were approved on the staff recommendation; program 2 (community services) and program 3 (infrastructure and environmental resources) similarly passed staff recommendations after discussion of restores and expands, including an expansion funded by a state grant to create a workers' rights enforcement unit in the district attorney's office.

Staff said the recommended budget process will be finalized into a formal budget document for the board to consider for adoption on June 24. The budget and finance office also said it will return to the board in September with year‑end adjustments and begin the next strategic financial planning cycle in August.

What happens next: The board will consider the final budget on June 24; staff will prepare more detailed fiscal adjustments after the state's budget is enacted and will return in September with year‑end reconciliations.

Reporting note: Figures and program names are taken from the county presentation; final adoption could alter augmentations or net county cost levels.