Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino budget workshop spotlights CIP deferrals, fund-balance strain and calls for audit and revenue strategy
Summary
City staff presented a proposed FY 2026–27 operating and CIP budget with projected revenues below proposed expenditures and a list of suggested CIP deferrals; councilmembers pressed for a plan to generate revenue, restore priority projects (Tom Miner Park, city hall rehab), and asked staff to return with detailed options and costs, including a presentation on forensic/organizational-audit options.
City staff presented the City of San Bernardino’s proposed operating and capital-improvement budget for fiscal 2026–27 at a special workshop, outlining projected revenues, proposed spending and a list of CIP projects recommended for postponement because of funding and delivery capacity constraints.
City Manager staff framed the workshop around an overview of economic trends, proposed revenues and expenditures, fund balance and a capital-improvement program update. The city manager said total proposed budget funds for FY27 are projected at roughly $318 million in revenues and about $333 million in expenditures with approximately $15.2 million in CIP deferrals, and that staff planned to preserve a steady fund balance rather than draw reserves down further.
Budget manager Zuiva Ruiz detailed general-fund estimates and economic context: the FY27 proposed general-fund bottom line was presented at about $233.8 million in revenues and $249.0 million in expenditures, with increases in fines/forfeitures and intergovernmental revenue noted. Ruiz emphasized San Bernardino’s reliance on sales tax and cited Inland Empire unemployment at about 5.4% (January 2026) as a drag on consumer spending, a key revenue driver.
Public-works principal engineer Eddie Mendez described the CIP: the city has more than 130 projects (roughly half in planning), streets account for the largest allocation (about $148 million), and staff identified 11 projects proposed for postponement and about a dozen where funding would be reduced or replaced because of delivery capacity limits.
Councilmembers questioned several budget tradeoffs. They pressed staff for line-item clarity on vacancy savings (council heard vacancy-related savings of roughly $14 million–$15 million cited during the meeting), asked for the list of projects moved to other funds versus those deferred, and requested concrete costs for priority projects (Tom Miner Park, city hall rehabilitation). Councilmembers also raised enforcement and operations costs linked to a proposed citywide street-sweeping program (staff cited potential signs/implementation costs in the low millions and ongoing enforcement/staffing near $1 million annually) and discussed police-fleet spending: staff said the police department has an encumbered appropriation of roughly $2 million for fleet replacements and had already issued several hundred thousand dollars in expenditures.
Several councilmembers asked for a deep organizational review (some used the term "forensic audit"). Staff explained a forensic audit typically targets specific suspected wrongdoing and can be resource- and time-intensive, while an organizational or operational deep dive focuses on efficiency and structural recommendations. The council directed the city manager to identify and bring a qualified auditor/consultant to present audit options and scope to the council (staff suggested approximately 60 days to identify a presenter) and asked staff to return with funding options and a definitive breakdown of deferred vs. reallocated CIP projects before the final budget adoption.
No formal votes were taken at the workshop. The council set a path for staff follow-up, targeted the final budget hearing for June 17 and asked staff to return with prioritized options and cost estimates for council consideration.
