Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears midyear budget report; staff urges reserve-target changes as supervisors warn of structural deficit
Summary
County staff presented a FY24–25 midyear report showing a projected $37.7 million fund balance and anticipated revenue pressures (Prop 172 down ~$1.7M, $3.3M Sonoma contract loss). Staff recommended adjustments and a policy change to set general-reserve targets at two–three months of operating revenues; the board asked staff to return with a public listing of programs vulnerable to federal funding cuts and adopted the reserve-policy changes unanimously.
County budget staff presented the FY24–25 midyear financial report and recommended budget and position adjustments, warning of revenue pressures and structural budget risk.
Emily Combs, the county budget officer, reviewed midyear projections: overall midyear projections show reductions in net county costs compared with the working budget but staff still anticipate ending the fiscal year with roughly $37.7 million in fund balance. The presentation flagged a projected $1.7 million decline in Prop 172 public-safety revenues and a $3.3 million loss of institutional-care revenue arising from the Sonoma contract not moving forward.
Staff recommended several one-time capital and fixed-asset appropriations, position changes (the resolution proposed adding 10 positions and deleting 9, for a net increase of one FTE, plus extensions of limited-term positions), and asked the board to confirm budget hearing dates for June. The budget team emphasized that many state and federal funding impacts remain uncertain and will require monitoring.
During questions, the assistant county administrator explained the county operates in a structural deficit — recurring revenues do not fully cover recurring expenditures — and that fund balance and reserves have been used to balance past budgets. Board members pressed staff for a public, itemized list of county services and programs that would be vulnerable if federal funding were cut; staff committed to compile and return with that information.
Separately, staff proposed modest revisions to the county’s general-fund reserve and contingency policies to align with Government Finance Officers Association guidance. Assistant County Administrator Ian Goldberg said staff recommend setting a target reserve equal to two to three months of general fund operating revenues (an estimated $58 million–$87 million target) and using a contingency range for flexibility. Board members asked about credit rating implications and timeline; staff said their goal is to work toward targets over a multi‑year window (typical board practice is up to five years). The board approved the policy update unanimously and voted to adopt staff midyear recommendations while asking for follow-up vulnerability analysis.
