Solano County supervisors adopt $1.6 billion FY 2024–25 budget, draw on reserves

The Solano County Board of Supervisors voted 5–0 to adopt the recommended fiscal year 2024–25 budget, a plan the county presented as roughly $1.6 billion in total governmental funds and a 2.5% increase over last year.

County budget staff told the board the package relies on a mix of federal and state revenues for restricted programs and draws on one‑time funds and reserves to balance the plan. Emily, a county budget presenter, said the recommended budget includes a net draw of about $8.4 million from the capital renewal reserve that would reduce that reserve to about $11 million and that the county’s capital renewal and carryover needs include $7 million in previously approved projects and $10 million in new capital funding in the recommended plan. She also said the county’s total net draw from capital renewal would be reflected in the reported figures in the board packet.

The presentation described health and social services (H&SS) and public safety as the largest functions funded in the recommended plan, noting H&SS and public safety together account for roughly 70% of special revenue funds. Emily said local property taxes and discretionary taxes make up a smaller share of total funding and that the county relies heavily on intergovernmental sources (realignment funds, Prop 1 72, AB 109 and MHSA among them) to pay many program costs.

County administration framed the budget against several pressures: higher inflation and interest rates, a slowing housing market that affects property tax growth, multi‑year labor contracts, rising CalPERS rates and liability‑insurance costs the county said have increased statewide because of wildfire and other risks. The county administrator warned that federal and state budget outcomes could require revisions later in the year.

Jerry Huber, Solano County’s health and social services director, told the board his department’s fiscal picture included a roughly $514 million department budget and ‘‘a structural deficit’’ in the county’s primary care clinics that staff plan to study with an outside consultant. Huber said state initiatives such as CalAIM and pending reforms — including potential changes tied to SB 43 and conservatorship rules — complicate forecasting and that demand for safety‑net programs (Medi‑Cal, CalWORKs, CalFresh) has increased since the pandemic.

Staff presented additional fiscal details: a net addition of about 26 positions in the recommended budget (with a modest overall positions increase of about 1.1%), a vacancy count of about 338 positions (roughly a 10.7% vacancy rate), a $14 million general fund contingency, and an estimated $174 million general fund contribution to public safety (an increase of roughly 6%) and roughly $46 million to H&SS (about a 20% increase over last year). The presentation also noted the recommended plan uses the last of some one‑time ARPA revenue replacement funding ($5 million) to shore up family health clinics, which will reduce ongoing available one‑time funds.

Public comment included two speakers. Mister Wright urged the board to scrutinize the sheriff’s custodial fund (6550), arguing the county has declining inmate populations and that staffing and facility use should be reconsidered; he suggested closing or converting an aging facility to behavioral health care. Mister Gwynn disagreed with Wright, praised the sheriff’s department and urged broader budget reductions elsewhere. The board did not take additional action on those public comments during the meeting.

After closing the public hearing the board ‘‘ordered’’ adoption of the budget by a roll call vote read as 5–0. Board members thanked staff and department heads for the work compiling the budget and acknowledged that some figures could change pending state and federal budget finalizations; one board member said the county may not have a fully completed budget until September.

The board’s action adopts the recommended FY 2024–25 budget and associated position resolutions as presented and recorded in the meeting packet; staff noted follow‑up work remains on capital planning, clinic sustainability and potential state/federal impacts.