Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ventura County APCD holds first public hearing on FY 2026-27 budget; second hearing set for June 23
Summary
At a June 9 public hearing, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District staff outlined a proposed $20.3 million budget for fiscal year 2026-27, emphasizing operating needs and pass-through incentive funds. A resident asked the board to shift more resources to permit engineering; a second hearing is scheduled for June 23.
The Ventura County Air Pollution Control Board on June 9 held the first of two statutorily required public hearings on the district's proposed fiscal year 2026-27 budget, reviewing a plan that staff said totals about $20.3 million with an estimated net district operating cost of roughly $1.3 million.
Executive Officer Ali Ghassemi presented the budget overview, describing two funds: the operating fund (Fund 0700) with proposed appropriations around $10.7 million and a pass-through grants fund (Fund 0701) of about $9.6 million. He said the proposal reflects an increase in salary and benefit costs and continued investment in monitoring and modernization, and that the district remains "financially stable and positioned to sustain operational through fiscal year 2627." (Ali Ghassemi).
The presentation emphasized revenue composition (staff said roughly 84% of revenue comes from permitting, state and federal sources), planned allocations from the fund balance for items such as fixed assets and litigation, and continued use of incentive funds for mobile-source projects. Staff reported a current staffing complement of roughly 47 FTE plus extra-help and student workers.
In public comment, Laura Kranzler urged the board to reconsider approving the budget as proposed, arguing the district has become "top heavy" with administrative positions while the engineering division lacks capacity. "We need more permit engineering support," Kranzler said, noting the permit engineering team described in the organizational chart consists of two permit engineers, one processing specialist, limited extra-help hours and a supervisor — a configuration she said leaves the district stretched thin and slows permit processing.
Board members asked staff for clarification about vacancies and staffing allocations; staff said the district's current complement reflected full staffing for planning purposes and offered to provide additional breakdowns as requested.
No adoption occurred at the meeting. The board noted it will hold a second public hearing to consider adoption of the FY 2026-27 budget on June 23 at 1:30 p.m.
The hearing record includes staff materials and a public comment letter submitted by Joanne Stewart; board members may direct further changes or return the proposal for adoption at the June 23 hearing.
