Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget Overview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County warns of near‑billion‑dollar structural gap; administration leans on Measure A, revenue changes to avoid deeper cuts
Summary
County Executive James Williams told the Board a recommended budget responds to federal and state funding reductions that together could push the county toward a nearly $1 billion annual gap; the plan relies on Measure A revenues, state advocacy and operational revenue solutions while acknowledging substantial implementation risk.
County Executive James Williams and County Budget Director Ezekiel presented a recommended budget that the administration says is structurally balanced only because of a combination of new local revenue from Measure A, aggressive revenue initiatives and program restructurings.
Williams told the Board the county is confronting “unprecedented” federal funding reductions that have hit healthcare and safety‑net programs and could grow into a near‑$1 billion annual shortfall. The administration’s three‑pronged approach includes dedicating Measure A receipts (projected at roughly $337 million for the coming fiscal year) to the public health system, pursuing state partnerships and pushing operational and revenue changes across county departments and Santa Clara Valley Healthcare.
The presentation by Ezekiel, the county budget director, highlighted the forecast drivers: large Medi‑Cal/Medi‑care funding shifts, lower property‑tax growth and rising labor and operating costs. Ezekiel projected a substantial deficit for FY28 absent further state or federal action and said the recommended budget assumes no positive changes from the May Revise in Sacramento.
Administration leaders described $787 million of identified ongoing solutions to address the gap, emphasizing that many are revenue‑based and will require operational changes within departments and the public health system. They repeatedly warned the Board that those revenue assumptions are aggressive and carry implementation risk; if the initiatives underperform, the county would have to pursue additional cuts.
Supervisor comments during the session echoed those risks and emphasized transparency and protections for safety‑net services. The Board asked staff for detailed follow‑ups on specific items, including a breakdown of Measure A allocations, lists of client‑service contracts affected by object‑two budget proposals, and a prioritization of in‑flight hospital capital projects that currently hold active permits.
