Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County holds early budget work session as departments outline FY26–27 pressures and priorities
Summary
County leaders heard MOE briefings from the CAO and major agencies on April 14, 2026; presenters flagged salary and benefit cost increases, federal and state funding uncertainty, and department‑specific investments in health, homeless services, public safety and infrastructure that will shape the proposed FY26–27 budget.
Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors convened a special early budget work session on April 14, 2026, receiving a briefing from County Administrator Susan Moranishi and preliminary maintenance‑of‑effort (MOE) presentations from more than a dozen county agencies. President Halbert opened the meeting and noted the session’s purpose: to give the board an early, department‑by‑department look at the fiscal forces that will shape the proposed FY26–27 budget.
Moranishi told the board the county faces familiar but acute challenges: salary and benefit increases, rising operating and internal service fund costs, and revenue uncertainty driven by weak local growth and potential reductions in federal and state funding. She said the MOE framework will guide development of a balanced proposed budget to be presented in late May and adopted in June.
Across agency briefings, recurring themes emerged: health and social service departments warned that federal proposals and state rules (including changes tied to HR1 and Prop 1) could shift costs to counties; public safety agencies discussed pension and overtime pressures and capital needs; and public infrastructure units described aging facilities and escalating construction costs. Directors provided concrete investments they would seek to sustain services — from behavioral health and homelessness coordination to jail medical improvements and EV charging infrastructure — while multiple presenters noted the county’s heavy reliance on state and federal funds.
Presenters also highlighted new tools and transparency measures. The Social Services Agency demonstrated a public interactive dashboard that reports month‑to‑month caseloads for Medi‑Cal, CalFresh, IHSS and other programs. The auditor‑controller reported an unmodified single audit and continued work to modernize property and record‑keeping systems. The registrar of voters outlined election‑year readiness steps and warned that additional, governor‑called special elections would add cost and staffing demands.
Board members pressed departments for more detail on the cost and program implications of pending state and federal actions, asked for comparisons to prior years and wanted clarity about vacancies and the county’s ability to recruit and retain staff. Several supervisors asked for follow‑up information on specific items — including health‑system intergovernmental transfers, the assessor’s appeal projections, and the public defender’s request for staffing data tied to workload studies.
The CAO and department heads said more detailed MOE and CIP materials will follow as analysts refine revenue forecasts and policy options. The board’s early review is intended to inform policy choices and potential tradeoffs before the proposed budget is released to the public in late May.
