Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Sacramento County Board of

Supervisors for Wednesday, June 4th, 2025. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll

and establish a quorum? Yes. Good morning, Supervisors. Kennedy? Desmond? Rodriguez?

Here. Hume? Cerna? Here. And you have a quorum. This meeting of the Sacramento County Board

of Supervisors is live and recorded with closed captioning. It is cable cast on Metro

Cable 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and direct TV U-verse cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14live.satcounty.gov. Today's meeting will be repeated Saturday,

June 7th at 6 p.m. on Channel 14 and viewed at youtube.com forward slash Metro Cable 14.

The Board of Supervisors fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public

participation, civility, and use of courteous language. The Board does not condone the use

of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal

attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant. Seating is limited and available

on a first-come, first-served basis. Each speaker will be given two minutes to make a public comment

and are limited to making one comment per agenda or off-agenda matter. Please be mindful of the public

comment procedures to avoid being interrupted while making your comment. Comments made by the

public during Board of Supervisors meetings may include information that could be inaccurate or

misleading, particularly concerning topics related to public health, voter registrations, and elections.

The County of Sacramento does not endorse or validate the accuracy of public statements made

during these open public forums. The recordings are shared to provide transparency and access to the

proceedings of public meetings. To make a comment in person, please fill out a speaker request form

and hand it to clerk staff. The chairperson will open public comments for each agenda or off-agenda

item and direct the clerk to call the name of each speaker. When the clerk calls your name, please come to

the podium and make your comment. If a speaker is unavailable to make a comment prior to the closing of

public comments, the speaker waives their request to speak and the clerk will file the speaker request form

in the record. The clerk will manage the timer and allow each speaker two minutes to make a comment.

Off-agenda public comments will take place for a maximum of 30 minutes and the remainder of the

agenda comments will take place at the conclusion of the time matters in the afternoon. You may send

written comments by email to boardclerk at sackcounty.gov and your comments will be routed to the board and

filed in the record. If you need an accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act or for medical or other

reasons, please seek clerk staffed for assistance or contact us at 916-874-5451 or by email at boardclerk

at sackcounty.gov. Thank you in advance for your courtesy and understanding of the meeting procedures.

Great, thank you. Will you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Okay, again I'd like to welcome everyone to this morning's proceedings and of course this is somewhat of a momentous annual ritual that we have here in Sacramento County and in fact local government enjoys that ritual everywhere each year,

which is arguably the most important responsibility that we exercise each year, which is of course considering allocation resources our budget.

And I know that we're going to hear from our CEO in a few minutes, but I do think it's worth mentioning, at least from the chair's perspective, just how important this is.

It's oftentimes stated that budgets are a reflection of our values and I do agree with that statement as sometimes trite as it can be.

But, you know, when you go back and look through the record of the decisions that we make as your board of supervisors to provide what is necessary to fulfill the mission of service and programming and infrastructure and all the responsibilities that we have,

the product of what we do in chambers here today really needs to reflect how we thoughtfully think about those things.

So, with your help, and I know that many of you are here to provide testimony to the board and give us your thoughts and your feelings about how we should allocate those resources,

resources we will hopefully at the end of the day and perhaps maybe tomorrow if necessary come out at the other end with a budget that we can be proud of

and that will indeed for the 25-26 budget year reflect our values.

So, with that, Madam Clerk, first item.

Our first item are public comments relating to matters not on the post-to-day agenda and we do have three speakers signed up.

Okay.

And as before the clerk calls the first speaker, just a reminder,

these are, this is the time of our, during our agenda where members of the public are certainly invited to address the board on any items not on our posted published agenda.

We cannot take any action.

We cannot have any lengthy discussion about the items and that is, again, because of a sunshine law, the Brown Act.

And so, I just want to make that clear just in the event that you think that we may be ignoring you, we are not.

We just by law cannot, again, really engage fully on the subjects that you bring to our attention during off-agenda matters.

Madam Clerk.

Okay.

Our first speaker is Ahmad Salim Abdurrahman.

I hope I didn't butcher it.

Maybe we can come down here.

Good morning, everyone.

My name is Ahmad Salim Abdurrahman.

And I am here today representing Gaitan Resources Incorporation,

a community-based organization serving Sacramento's immigrants, refugee, and low-income families of color since 1980.

Excuse me.

Excuse me, sir.

Excuse me.

I stopped your time, so you're not eating at your time.

Is this about the budget?

Yes.

Okay.

So this is off agenda.

So we're going to hear from you, but we want to hear from you at the right time.

So if you could work with the young lady at the back with the clerk's office,

she will help you better understand kind of when you should come down and join.

I would expect others that want to address the board on that subject matter.

So we want to make sure you're on the record correctly.

Okay?

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Our next speaker is Sam Greenley.

Before I begin, mine is about the budget, but it's an item not included in the budget present.

So if it's about the budget, yeah, if it's about the budget, save it for the budget.

Okay.

They directed me to put it on the topic.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Jane

Good morning

Good morning

Excuse me

Chair Cerna

Vice Chair Rodriguez

Supervisor Hume

Supervisor Kennedy

and Supervisor Desmond

My name is Jane Klar

I'm the current chair

of the Juvenile Justice Commission

I'd like to

on behalf of the commission

I'd like to thank you

for giving us the opportunity

Excuse me

It's not about the budget

Are you sure?

Yeah

Okay

So thank you

It's purely

a thank you

Alright

We'll take it

Thank you

Thank you

Thank you

I'd like to thank

Can we increase the speakers?

Thank you for giving us

the opportunity

to present

our Juvenile Justice Commission

report to you

this past January

We truly appreciate

each of you

for taking the time

to meet with us

recently

We are grateful

for your support

in navigating

our funding strategies

and helping us

to sustain

nominal operating costs

As a commission

we want to ensure

that the Juvenile Justice Commission

continues to inspect

and make recommendations

regarding the needs

for incarcerated

and detained youth

Our continued interest

is also with

at-risk youth

in the community

who have come

to the attention

of family court

We again

thank each commissioner

for your awareness

and support

of the work

of the Juvenile Justice Commission

Thank you

Thank you

Thank you

Okay

Now we're on to

item two

For item two

you're acting

as the in-home

supportive services

public authority

This is to approve

the Sacramento County

in-home supportive services

public authority

fiscal year

2025-26

requested budget

good morning

Good morning

My name is

John Kozitsa

I am serving

in the role

of executive director

for the Sacramento County

in-home supportive services

public authority

John can you bring

the mics a little closer

to you

A little closer

Yeah

Thanks

I want to be able

to hear you

That work better

Yeah

Thank you

Okay

So I'm here

this morning

to present

the public authorities

budget

for the fiscal year

25-26

This is a proposed budget

so it is

basically

giving you

a status quo

We're assuming

revenues will continue

flat in light

of the economic

conditions

and the politics

surrounding it

but

I am understanding

that the money

we will get

a slight increase

in the future

However

that will be offset

by ongoing

expense increases

This budget

is really continuing

on some existing

services

regarding urgent care

training

and then some

cleanup on

administrative

duties

So

our budget

currently

and what we were

asking from you

this morning

is a budget

of $4,838,592

and the detail

on that

is I think

on attachment

2

If you want

to take a look

at that

and if you had

any questions

I can explain

some of the

movement

It is basically

we're shifting

accounting

from our fund

into DCFAS's fund

by virtue of

restructuring

and just processing

things a little

differently

There's really

no net difference

in any of that

I wonder if you

have any questions

on the numbers

Any questions

from my colleagues

Seeing none

Does that conclude

the presentation

If that would be

I had one last thing

But I don't have it

so my apologies

that will be it

No worries

Thank you

Madam Clerk

do we have anyone

signed to address

this particular matter

We do not have

any public comments

All right

Very good

All right

With that

bringing it back

to the board

for consideration

of a motion

I will move

to approve

the recommended

action

Second

It's been moved

and seconded

Please vote

Unanimous vote

Thank you

Thank you

Okay

For item three

you're acting

as the board

of supervisors

This is the

consideration

possible revision

and approval

of the fiscal year

2025-26

recommended budget

and also

I'm going to read

item four

into the record

the adoption

of the fiscal year

2025-26

five year

capital improvement

plan

And just a

procedural point

of clarity

looking at county

council

can we take

these together

or should we

consider them

separate

Together

Very good

All right

I have to

look to my boss

All right

Very good

Thank you

Okay

Who's going to

kick us off

here

Thank you

supervisor

Good morning

board of supervisors

David Villanueva

your county executive

I'm here today

with my executive team

and many department

heads sitting in the

gallery behind me

to present the

25-26 recommended

budget

I'll provide a little

bit of an overview

and then we'll turn it

over to our CFO

Amanda Thomas

and she'll take a deeper

dive into some of the

numbers and the policy

decisions

I come before you

today with a bit

of mixed emotions

I'm incredibly proud

of the team

my team

and what they've done

to bring this budget

into balance

however that balancing

requires us to make

some difficult

recommendations

this includes reducing

social services

internal services

parks

animal care services

and our CBO partners

in addition to public

safety

that's just to name a few

while the last five years

have had a period

of considerable growth

for the county

we are now facing

some challenges

that makes it

necessary to make

some tough decisions

to ensure

that our current

reductions are limited

in nature

and allow us to continue

to deliver the fantastic

services that our teams

currently provide

in the years to come

the overarching theme

of this year

is our structural imbalance

that is we are relying

on one-time resources

to fund ongoing

expenditures

despite that

we were able to

balance the budget

and put forth

the county plan

that will put us

in a path

towards fiscal

sustainability

this year's budget

is $8.9 billion

spending plan

and represents

a 2.8% decrease

compared to last year's

adopted budget

this year's spending plan

also includes

a $1 billion

in discretionary resources

and an estimated

$71 million

of fund balance

and that fund balance

represents our

one-time resources

some of our

runtime resources

this estimate

represents a 37%

reduction

compared to last year's

last year's available fund balance

was approximately

$112 million

which $80 million

was used to pay

for ongoing expenditures

this structural imbalance

contributed

to the necessity

for us to make

these reductions

department leaders

took a collaborative

and cooperative approach

as they identified

areas of reductions

while minimizing

impacts of service

to our constituents

departments

recommendations

included

deleting vacant

positions

submitting budgets

that match

the department's

actual cost

reviewing salary

savings estimates

finding ways

to work more efficiently

and making the most

cost-effective use

of alternative resources

and funding

however

after this work

the general fund

reduction

still total

$18 million

which will be

which will result

in 73 deleted

positions

all of which

were vacant

at the time

we prepared

this budget

and finalized it

the general fund

also includes

growth

in the addition

of 52 positions

both those

discretionary

and non-discretionary

resources

were used

to fund

that growth

in the discretionary

use growth

side

it focused

mainly

on critical

services

which is

the top

boards

and reflects

the board's

top priority

which is

county obligations

much of which

went towards

the May's

consent decree

because the

budget

recommendation

does not fund

the budget

does not fully

fund the base

budget

we are not

recommending

putting any

money into

our reserve

that is

putting money

into our

rainy day

reserve

our current

reserve

represents

a 5.5%

of our

general fund

revenues

while our

revenue policy

targets

17%

before Amanda

Flo if you can

put that up there

before Amanda

starts off

with her

25-26

budget review

I wanted to

talk a little

bit about

how we

arrived

at today's

recommended

budget

basically

to talk

about

the

process

that's

something

that

several

supervisors

asked me

to talk

about

the county

executive's

office

sets

targets

and there's

a slide

up there

and I believe

they're handing

something out

to you

the county

executive's

office

sets

targets

for

departments

based on

the budget

outlooks

for the

coming year

we usually

start that

in about

January or

February

of the

year

this year's

budget

target

was to

keep

budgets

flat

or

status

quo

which

is

essentially

a reduction

in everybody's

budget

some

departments

identified

funding

that they

need to

continue

ongoing

programs

and services

departments

submit their

budget

requests

and prioritize

both their

growth

and the

reduction

scenarios

based on

the OCE

budget

targets

several

departments

submitted

budgets

with no

increases

at all

to net

county

costs

and no

impacts

to the

service

levels

the OCE

staff

meet

with

each

department

and reviews

the

reductions

and how

those

reductions

align

with the

board

priorities

and discuss

alternatives

and offer

solutions

if necessary

to minimize

impacts

there's an

exception

to this

process

where we

can

direct

how we

work

with most

of our

departments

or all

of our

departments

we have

no

authority

over the

budget

scenarios

submitted

by the

sheriff

and the

DA

we

accept

their

reductions

and

priorities

as

submitted

while

we

did

discuss

the

impact

and

offer

alternative

the

reductions

in

this

recommended

budget

reflects

their

priorities

and not

the

county

executives

the

OCE

then

finalizes

the

budget

and

puts

it out

to

print

and

distributes

it

although

this is

a challenging

budget

year

I would

like to

recognize

and

celebrate

many

of the

investments

that this

board

has made

in the

prior

years

and these

are

incredibly

smart

investments

that we've

made

and have

made real

benefits

to our

community

first of all

the May's

consent

decree

we've moved

the needle

on the May's

consent

decree

in recent

times

more than

30 items

have recently

moved from

court monitoring

to now under

court surveillance

or self

monitoring

the county

currently invests

90 to 100

million dollar

annually in

public safety

attributed to

the May's

consent decree

SMF Forward

is another

fantastic project

the first

two SMF Forward

projects

of seven

are under

construction

the pedestrian

walkway

between

terminal B

and concourse

B

and the new

parking garage

next to

terminal B

which I know

everybody can

not wait to

open that

hopefully in the

next I think

it's 18 months

the total cost

of SMF Forward

is 1.4

billion dollars

for all seven

projects

and this project

has no impact

on the general

fund

Metro Air

Park is another

success story

over the past

three years

21 buildings

have been

constructed

at the Metro

Air Park

totaling

6.1 million

square feet

generating

362 million

dollars of

investment

and creating

at least

2,500 jobs

and the progress

continues

out at Metro

Air Park

as we speak

animal care

services

recently launched

pet aid

and wellness

services

or their

paws

to provide

free veterinary

care

to vulnerable

communities

it provides

more than

1,500

exams

and almost

500 spay

and neuter

surgeries

and the

clinic

also delivers

well over

1,000

wellness

services

to those

vulnerable

communities

transportation

and roads

since

2022

we've invested

over 90 million

dollars of general

fund on our

streets

and our

improvements

our street

and roadway

improvements

and overlaid

projects

that includes

included

other work

that we've

done

includes

an additional

375 million

dollars

homeless

homeless

our efforts

to address

homeless

has been

making a

difference

the county

has added

more than

451 beds

to our

shelter system

in less

than five

years

with

442

shelter beds

scheduled to

open within

the next

year

overall we

have a total

of more

than 1,800

beds

both planned

and operational

that the county

is fully funding

or partially

funding

during this

last couple

of years

we opened

our first

safe

stay

which

is

floor

and road

safe

stay

with 125

beds

we also

opened

east

parkway

safe

stay

with a total

of 56

beds

Watt Avenue

is another

great community

that we're

starting

and I talked

with somebody

earlier today

the Watt Avenue

safe stay

is expected

to open

late 2025

early 2026

this will

add 225

sleeping cabins

75

weather

respite

beds

and the

county's

first safe

parking

facility

for 50

people

recently

health

services

received

a 45

million

behavioral

health

grant

or

b-chip

grant

to develop

the Watt Avenue

behavioral

health

campus

this project

includes

behavioral

health

mental

health

urgent

care

with 650

slots

to serve

an estimated

15,600

individuals

annually

along with

a 36

bed adult

residential

treatment

facility

we also

opened

Stockton

Boulevard

safe

stay

we've

partnered

with the

city of

Sacramento

and the

state

of

California

where the

state

of

California

built

the

facility

the

city

of

Sacramento

is

managing

the

referrals

and the

county

is

operating

the

facility

with

175

beds

Grove

Florin

we talked

a little

bit about

yesterday

this is

72

transitional

housing

beds

for

adults

55

and

older

experiencing

homelessness

and

substance

use

disorder

or

severe

mental

illness

also we

prioritize

care

court

participants

for this

priority

population

behavioral

health grant

funding has

been a tremendous

impact

funding many of the things that I just listed off but they've also added at least 147 more beds for transitional housing

beach hip another grant funding that Siobhan's group has been pursuing is beach hip three which Sacramento County is partnering with well space health on a 32 bed mental health rehabilitation center construction project that is estimated to open in December of 2026 black child legacy this year we celebrate 10 years of our black child legacy campaign over the past five years the county has invested nearly 32 million dollars in the black child legacy campaign and

making a real

and

expand passport services for the past six to expand passport services for county residents to date they've processed over 1500 applications and generated almost 100,000 dollars in revenue this by far is not an exhaustive list but we could not have accomplished any of this without your support and your leadership your investments in these critical services and infrastructure over the past several years have made made the community stronger healthier and improved our lives of our residents and it helped communities to thrive

lastly it's important to acknowledge that while I submit the recommended budget the final budget decision rests with the board and we are committed to following that final plan once the board makes that decision.

So before we begin if you have any questions for me I'm open for questions if not I'll turn it back to the chair and I see Amanda over here ready to pounce onto the podium to start presenting.

Thank you david I know supervisor hume is in the queue here to chime in before we hear from him let's do something a little off script but it' s for the general benefit of the public especially the public that' s joined us here today and sometimes we only see these faces once a year but I think it serves as a good reminder maybe if you could introduce the four people behind you that gives a face and a name to the responsibility

that each of your deputy execs has in their various respective spaces for county service delivery.

I absolutely will. On my far left stage left I guess that is.

is dr. Sylvester fadal he' s our deputy county executive over administrative services and that group mainly oversees the internal services but also includes elections and county clerk recorder and several other

departments and some other folks. Next to him is Dave Defonte he is our deputy county executive over community services and he represents all the public works roads water and all the services and he's key to the development review process and he's made making tremendous progress on that.

Next to him is Siobhan Kathari she is our deputy county executive over social services and that is all our social services including environmental management.

And then behind me is Eric Jones he is our public safety and justice deputy county executive and he is our liaison between the elected district attorney and the elected sheriff along with public defender, public defender, coroner and other public safety type services.

So and last but not least is the lady Amanda Thomas that is standing before you at the podium.

None of this could be done without her and her team.

She's been here for I think three years and she's pretty much mastered our budget.

Well she's been in that role for three years.

That's true.

She's been with the county for a little bit longer.

She returned from and we stole her from a local group but we're incredibly happy to have her come back.

And then last person on and then two other people on my executive team that are not here is Kim Nava who is our public information officer and Alicia DeVore who is our legislative affairs person.

Very good.

Thank you for doing that.

I think it's important for everyone to know who the folks are that serve in the office of the county executive.

So when you say OCE the individuals that you just mentioned make up the OCE and I just want to go on record thanking all of you for you know your your service every day.

And so I think it's important for you to be on the board.

Especially during budget season because I know it can get very very busy and there's a lot of activity and back and forth.

And you're charged with shuttling between your respective departments and your bosses office.

And attempting to assemble what we're considering today.

And that's no easy feat so thank you for doing that Mr. County executive.

Supervisor senator I'd be remiss if I didn't do this.

Behind them is a whole host of department heads and maybe they can stand up.

And these the reason why these folks are here today is because their budgets are actually impacted today.

Sure.

Not necessarily in the positive way.

So they've made those sacrifices and made the recommendations to the deputies.

And these are a fantastic bunch of folks.

And every day I every time I meet with them and sit around our department head meetings I'm amazed at the talent that sits around this room.

And as a board you should be incredibly proud of of this group that we've assembled for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I am very proud.

And I know my colleagues are very proud.

And the people that just stood and the folks behind you and at the podium.

Others that are still upstairs doing work as we speak.

Are civil servants that really really take their jobs and responsibilities very seriously.

And I think I'm very proud of the board members.

Even very personally as it relates to some of the most intimate aspects of county governance.

Whether it be child welfare, public safety and public health.

Just to name a few.

But again I think again it deserves repeating that we the board all appreciate your civil service.

With that, Supervisor Hume.

Thank you Chair.

And actually that's a perfect segue into what I wanted to comment on.

We're going to hear a lot of very valuable and somewhat mind numbing information.

And a lot of push pull from folks who have concerns with what's being presented.

And then we're going to dig into some deliberations and really get into the meat of things.

And so I wanted to put something on the record so that I don't forget it.

And that is to follow up on the acknowledgement that we just had.

And just say how proud and grateful I am for all of the folks who made some difficult decisions.

And I know that at the end of the day, first of all made difficult decisions with a fiscally constrained mindset.

And I know at the end of the day these are human decisions.

They're human decisions that affect the people that work for us.

And more importantly they're human decisions that affect the people for whom we work.

And it's not easy.

And I feel like this was an excellent year to begin this process.

And it is beginning of a process unfortunately because nobody has a perfect crystal ball.

But I've told people that this is a has been a polite budget experience.

It's kind of like a velvet rope where it demands respect and it provides order.

But it does so in a non-threatening and fairly elegant way.

And in some budget years we have metal barricades that are cold and unforgiving.

And so I just appreciate that we're going through this effort.

And I appreciate the work, the introspection and self-awareness from all the department heads

to really try and at least put something forward that recognizes that this is not an endless supply of money.

And that we do have to kind of right size ourselves every now and then.

So I appreciate the indulgence.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Hume.

You know, it hasn't been said yet, I don't think by anyone, but by law, by law, by statute, we have to pass a balanced budget.

It's the law.

We're not Congress.

We can't print money.

We can't extend, you know, a deficit into the trillions.

We have to balance our budget.

And so that is an important, important guardrail that is specific to local government and in this case to counties.

And I would just ask you to reflect on that at some point prior to your testimony and the fact that the difficult decisions that Supervisor Hume just referenced are in that context.

We have to pass a balanced budget with the resources that we have and the ones that we expect.

And so with that, I think that's an appropriate introduction to Amanda's presentation.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair Serna, board members.

I'm Amanda Thomas, the county's chief fiscal officer.

And I will be providing an overview of the fiscal year 25-26 recommended budget and capital improvement plan.

Before I jump in, I'm hoping that you will indulge me for just a moment to echo a question.

To echo everything that was said, I'm extremely proud to be part of this executive team, this department head group.

And I really want to thank the departments, including the fiscal teams in the departments who put a lot of thought and creativity and I'm sure some long hours into this budget.

And I also really want to acknowledge the analysts in my office who have a sometimes challenging job of partnering with departments in this process, but also ensuring that we're being consistent among all departments and following budget guidelines that aren't always possible.

So that's not easy and they do a great job of that.

And I'd like to appreciate them as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

So, as County Executive Villanueva mentioned and as you will likely hear me say several times, the use of one-time resources to fund ongoing general fund expenditures has resulted in a structural imbalance.

And in order to bring the budget into structural balance, we really must align our ongoing expenditures with ongoing revenues.

This is a process that actually started last fiscal year, is continuing in this year's budget and we expect to be a multi-year effort going forward.

So, while the recommended budget does include recommendations for program reductions needed to balance the budget, it also reflects efficiencies identified by departments resulting in cost savings and a lower need for discretionary resources without negatively impacting service levels.

It reflects additional costs for county obligations including the May's consent decree.

Overall, it does reflect less reliance on one-time funding, though we are still using one-time funding.

And it reflects continued funding for many priority programs despite the need for some reductions.

It's important to note that this recommended budget does not reflect any potential impacts that could result from the state budget or changes in federal funding with really a great deal of uncertainty on the horizon about what those impacts could mean.

And because we are not fully funding the base level of service in this recommended budget, we are also not recommending any contributions to general fund reserves.

However, as I will be talking about later, reserve contributions would be a priority for any additional one-time resources available for the revised recommended budget in September.

Thank you.

Amanda, before you leave the slide, I think occasional analogies help during the course of the presentation because the county budget is extremely complicated.

But you correct me if I'm wrong, but when you say kind of a structural deficit and the fact that we have kind of balanced carryover that's diminishing,

I would liken that to you have certain household expenses that you have, you know, that you have, right?

You have a car payment, you have a mortgage payment, you have food, you have utilities.

Now, you can pay that out of your checking account, right?

Because you expect those amounts.

Some of those amounts are the same every month.

Some of them fluctuate.

But if you have to dip into your savings account on a regular basis to help cover those costs and your savings isn't getting replenished fast enough,

you're going to lose your savings over time.

And at some point, you're going to get to a point where now your checking account is vulnerable.

So would you say that that's kind of analogous to where we find ourselves?

Yes, absolutely.

I think that's a great way of putting it in everyday terms.

It would be like, you know, we're paying the rent from the money we have in our savings account.

And once we've spent that money, it's gone.

And how do we pay the rent next month?

Gotcha.

You know, that's the idea.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Okay.

And then just wrapping up on this slide, in addition to the budget recommendations before you today

and in recognition of the fact that we need to align revenues and expenditures,

we are asking the board to direct staff to explore revenue enhancement options

and then return to the board with recommendations.

And I'll talk a little bit more about that later in the presentation.

Okay.

So starting with a high-level overview of the recommended budget,

the budget is balanced, as mentioned, as required by state law.

But the general fund budget continues to be balanced with one-time sources,

although, again, with less reliance on one-time resources

and therefore greater structural balance than the fiscal year 24-25 budget.

The continued tightening that we're seeing in the general fund results from lower available fund balance

and continued slowing revenue growth, as well as increased costs and obligations.

As I'll describe later, the general fund budget includes recommended reductions

resulting from both a loss of dedicated funding and a shortfall in available discretionary resources.

General fund growth or funding for new or enhanced programs totals $43 million,

with $9 million of that funded with discretionary resources

that really are recommended to meet the county's obligations

and fund the most critical needs.

And then finally, just in terms of overview,

both the contingency and reserve recommendations included in this budget

are consistent with the board policies that were adopted in 2023.

So before talking about specific recommendations,

I wanted to set the backdrop of the community engagement process

and board priorities used to evaluate requests

and develop budget recommendations.

So this really started with the community engagement plan framework

that the board approved in 2021

and has continued through each subsequent budget cycle.

Some of the elements of that plan include public budget workshops

that provide a high-level overview of the county's budget

and highlight different departments each year.

Enhanced information that's available on the county's website,

including a very high-level budget and brief budget summary

and a budget explorer tool.

And then, of course, key to understanding the community's priorities

for the county's budget are the professional public opinion surveys

and focus groups of county residents,

with the most recent survey conducted in the fall of 2023

and then followed up by focus groups last November.

And then following those focus groups,

the board reaffirmed its budget priorities for fiscal year 25-26

in January of this year heading into the county's budget development process.

Supervisor, if I might add to that,

in addition to the outreach that Amanda's outlined right there,

I did offer and met with the Downtown Sacramento Partnership,

their board, and offered to meet with anybody on their board.

I also met with Metro Chamber and offered a meeting with them

to discuss our budget and the impacts of the budget.

I did host a meeting with Amanda and Mr. Jones a couple of Fridays ago

in which we went over all the budgets and the budget increases

and to share with them.

But included in that meeting was attendees from Metro Chambers Board,

the Downtown Partnership, Michael Ault and his team, and Scott.

Also people representing various PBIDs.

We also had the Realtors Association, Erin Teague.

I said good morning to her in the back.

Chris Norm was also there,

and then also a representative from the California Building Association.

I think we had a great meeting to discuss exactly where this budget was heading,

and I was there to answer any questions to do that additional outreach.

I think we've set a new precedent, so I think we'll be doing it again next year.

Thank you for doing that.

I think it's incredibly important to not just count on a single day,

namely today, for the budget to benefit from some affirmative,

intentional outreach that we do with various groups and interested parties.

So I think over the last few years,

staff and the county CEO's office have really taken to heart what the board directed you to do,

which was to enhance transparency to the extent that we can do that effectively

by maybe even months in advance about where we stand in terms of the condition of the budget

so that there are no surprises.

Everyone comes into this eyes wide open, so I do appreciate that effort.

Thank you.

So those priorities adopted by the board in January are paraphrased a bit here,

but the first priority is complying with the county's legal, financial, regulatory, and policy obligations.

Priority number two is optimizing the use of county resources,

so improving effectiveness and efficiency where possible,

and also limiting the extent to which reductions in dedicated revenues are backfilled with discretionary resources.

And the third priority is funding new or enhanced programs focused on the most critical and urgent needs

with priority focus areas identified in the survey of county residents being a county-wide focus area of addressing homelessness

and an unincorporated focus area of improving road conditions.

So again, these priorities were used to evaluate both the growth requests

and the reduction impacts submitted by departments to develop the recommendations before you today.

Okay, so stepping back to look at the all funds budget,

not just focusing on the general fund,

total appropriations for all funds are $8.9 billion,

and I think it's helpful to break that number down.

The first thing that's helpful to understand is that about $2 billion of that are transfers

or reimbursements between funds,

so that's really just money that's moving around within the county budget.

Every dollar that moves from one part of the budget to another requires an appropriation,

and this happens, as you'll see, when we have restricted fund revenue that's transferred to the general fund to fund expenditures,

and it also happens when one department pays another department for services.

Our net appropriations in non-general fund budgets are about $3 billion,

and these expenditures are largely funded by a rate, fee, and other special revenue dedicated to a specific purpose.

So an example of this would be utility fees paid by customers.

And then within the general fund, $1.9 billion of expenditures are funded with non-discretionary or departmental revenues,

which are also dedicated to a specific purpose within that department.

So this could come from customer fees for general fund departments,

but it includes a large amount of state and federal funding,

especially for the county's social services departments.

Then also in the general fund, reimbursements from the semi-discretionary restricted funds fund about $1 billion of expenditures.

And these semi-discretionary reimbursements are 1991 and 2011 realignment

and Proposition 172 public safety sales tax revenue that's received from the state

and is available to fund certain programs in the county's social services and public safety departments.

And then finally, discretionary resources in the general fund,

including both our discretionary revenues, so those ongoing funding sources like property taxes,

as well as our one-time resources like fund balance fund about $1 billion of expenditures.

And we generally refer to the appropriations funded with discretionary resources as net county cost.

Before you leave the slide, I'm going to extend the analogy a bit.

So this is like, so you have your household budget, you have checking and savings we talked about,

but your monthly bills that are due are paid out of checking,

but they're in part funded by your rich uncle who can be temperamental,

who sometimes will put money in your checking account,

sometimes will not put money in your checking account,

and it comes with strings attached.

He will say you can only spend a certain amount of dollars on X, right?

And so what this pie chart is telling us is that in that instance,

you only have full control of one-ninth of that $8.9 billion all funds budget.

The rest of it, there are rules, and you have to follow those rules,

or in many cases, you lose the funding entirely.

So that's an important distinction to make and for people to understand.

Agreed.

Okay.

Okay.

So this chart is showing us total appropriations,

including those transfers that I mentioned.

So the total $8.9 billion by fund type.

So if you look from left to right here,

you can see that the enterprise and special revenue funds make up about $3.4 billion

of total appropriations that are funded, again, through utility rates, fees,

other dedicated revenue sources.

In the middle, while total appropriations, again, in the general fund are about $4 billion,

you can see, again, here that only about one quarter, right,

that $1 billion are funded with discretionary resources.

Again, what we refer to as net county cost.

And then $1.6 billion, you can see,

are funded with restricted fund reimbursements,

which you can see are separately budgeted as appropriations

and the restricted funds off to the right.

$1.2 billion, again, looking in that middle general fund column,

we have $1.2 billion of that total $4 billion funded with state and federal revenue

for specific state and federally funded programs.

And then $185 million funded with other departmental revenue.

Again, all the way off to the right there,

that $1.6 billion in restricted fund appropriations,

that includes $1 billion for the semi-discretionary restricted funds

that I mentioned earlier,

and then $568 million for appropriations for other restricted funds.

Okay, so the $8.9 billion in total appropriations

or budgeted expenditures and transfers represents a decrease, actually,

of about $258 million or 2.8% compared to the current adopted budget.

The general fund overall has an increase of about $109 million or 2.8%.

One of the larger decreases that we're seeing is in our other special districts

in agencies, which overall has a decrease of $154 million or about 31%.

And this is really due in large part to the separation of the Sacramento area sewer district

and the fact that those employees are no longer county employees

and no longer included in the county budget.

Patient care revenue actually has a large increase of about $56 million or 20%,

and that's representing additional funding in the general fund

for behavioral health services.

So when netting out all the transfers between funds,

overall there is $6.9 billion in budgeted expenditures, net of reimbursements.

And then the $8.9 billion total budget also includes $66 million of total appropriations

for new or enhanced programs, again, what we call growth.

$43 million of that is in the general fund

and $23 million in non-general fund budgets.

So I mentioned the $6.9 billion in net appropriations when we take those transfers out,

and this chart is showing how that breaks out by functional area in the county's budget.

You can see that the largest share, this 37%,

is for expenditures in the county's social services departments,

including those departments shown here.

The second largest share at 29% is for community services.

Public safety and justice has 17%.

Administrative services, which are services provided by county departments to other county departments,

represents 11%, and then general government is 6%.

So turning it out to look just at the general fund,

and I mentioned earlier that total appropriations are $4 billion,

and the bulk of those, as we saw,

are funded with federal, state, departmental, and semi-discretionary resources.

If we look just at the $1.021 billion of discretionary resources in the general fund,

that are shown here on the left,

we can see that the available resources include $943 million of discretionary revenue,

so that's ongoing revenues,

$71 million of estimated available fund balance,

and that's the estimated amount remaining unspent from the 24-25 budget,

and again, therefore, a one-time source of funding.

And then a $7 million planned use of the property tax system reserve

to fund costs of that project.

And then the right-hand side here shows that together,

those sources are funding $1.021 billion in net county cost,

which reflects a base budget or the budget year cost,

so the 25-26 cost of current service levels of $1.028 billion,

with $4 million of recommended reduction due to the loss of dedicated funding for certain programs,

which we refer to as categorical reductions,

$12 million of other reductions needed to balance the budget,

and then $9 million of growth funded with discretionary resources.

So you can see, looking at these numbers,

that the $1.021 billion in net county costs

includes spending the entire $71 million of estimated fund balance,

which means that we're budgeting to spend more than we're bringing in,

back to that sort of savings account and ongoing household expenses analogy.

So, you know, we've been talking about this structural balance and what that means,

and this is a chart that I think does a good job of showing what we mean

by the use of fund balance in the budget and why that can be a problem.

So the top of each bar is showing the total fund balance available each year,

so that's the total amount unspent from the prior year

that is available in that budget year shown.

And the orange portion of these bars is representing the amount set aside in reserves in the budget.

So that's a good use of fund balance.

We set that aside.

It's available if we need it in future years,

but we're not funding ongoing expenditures with that one-time source.

And then the blue portion is representing the amount used to fund expenditures in the budget.

And you can see looking historically that the total unspent from the prior year

and sort of those pre-pandemic years there was around $50 million available each year.

And then we really saw during the pandemic years a very large increase in those amounts

due to pandemic-related impacts of not being able to fill positions, delays in projects and equipment.

And then just additional revenue, both in terms of some stimulus funding the county received directly

as well as the impacts of stimulus funding on the economy generally.

And we really have seen those impacts drop off in the last couple of years

and seen us returning to what would be a more normal expected level of fund balance.

In 24-25, $105 million of the available fund balance was used to fund appropriations,

as David mentioned, with approximately $80 million of that funding ongoing appropriations.

And that's compared to only $71 million of fund balance estimated to be available in 25-26.

And so while that $71 million represents less reliance on one-time funding

compared to the $80 million in 24-25,

it is very possible that we could end up with an even lower fund balance for the 26-27 budget.

And that's why we really do expect this to be a multi-year effort

to bring the budget into structural balance.

Amanda, before you leave the slide,

I think it deserves reflection here that kind of the importance of the reserve.

And of course, what we see here is the shrinking orange bar.

And I know that our county CEO was here during the Great Recession.

I was fortunate to be elected right at the tail end of that.

And so I remember quite clearly, I believe it was the 11-12 budget.

We still had some remnant cuts that we had to consider coming out of that recession

during which the county was forced to shed about 3,500 jobs.

3,500 jobs, which then, you know, aren't there to help feed our local economy,

aren't there to help pay mortgages,

aren't there to help pay monthly bills and education for kids.

So maybe, Mr. CEO, you could tell us a little bit about kind of what you remember about that

and why the reserve policy and keeping reserves at a healthy level

and building reserves is critical so we don't find ourselves in the same

or we can at least minimize the impacts of a similar economic downturn.

Thank you, Supervisor Serna.

I think one of the things that I mentioned during my opening remarks

is we're at about a 5.5% reserves right now.

And the board has a policy now of 17%, and so we're on our way.

But we had gone through incredible amounts of one-time money using our savings account

and still had to lay off or at least reduce our FTE count by at least 3,500.

We not only did we expend all our reserves, but we also took loans out.

And it took us about six or seven, maybe in 10 years, to pay back those loans.

So it's incredibly important that we continue to balance right-size this budget

by making sure that our ongoing expenditures are being paid for

with our ongoing revenues.

That's why you'll hear Amanda say and me pipe in every once in a while,

the use of one-time funds for ongoing expenditures

does not help us move that needle.

So that was an incredibly devastating time.

You know, it was very...

We have some of my executive team behind me

that actually had to sign their pink slips or their reduction papers

and were removed from positions.

So everybody was very impacted by that.

It was a dark time for the economy,

but it was also a dark time for Sacramento County.

And I don't want to return to that.

And if you follow the data,

you know, we have these ebbs and flows.

Our budget does not consider what our...

I think you said crazy uncle, I think is what the term you used,

that lives on the East Coast or the one that lives down the street

and the changes that they're making to their policies that will impact us.

We're not including the impacts that the federal government will have on us.

We're not including things that the state government...

So we need our reserves to be prepared for those things also.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Thank you for that.

And again, as a candidate at the time,

and sitting up in the cheap seats there,

watching the proceedings of the previous fiscal year

where the then Board of Supervisors was,

I think at the time,

considering somewhere in the neighborhood of a $4 billion budget,

but literally the Board of Supervisors was spending time with staff in deliberations

talking about how to save four-digit numbers in a $4 billion budget.

That's how desperate things were.

And those budget proceedings went on for days, not hours.

So I, too, remember that, at least as a very focused spectator

and later as a participant at the tail end.

But that, again, is kind of the tale of why a reserve policy

and a healthy reserve account is important.

Thank you.

Okay.

So looking at the ongoing discretionary resources,

discretionary revenues are budgeted, as I said, at $943 million.

And you can see from this chart that property taxes account for by far

the largest share of those revenues at about 72%.

And then that's followed by sales taxes

and then to a lesser extent other revenues and taxes.

Kind of looking at the other side of this,

so looking at now at how those discretionary resources,

including both our ongoing revenues and one-time fund balance,

how those are budgeted to be spent,

this chart is showing how that $1.021 billion net county cost

is allocated by functional area.

With the largest share of discretionary resources,

allocated to public safety and justice at 63%.

And then when you add in correctional health,

which is the social services department,

the combined percentage for public safety,

adding that in is about 72%.

So I'll say that the concentration of discretionary resources

for public safety is largely a function

of the lack of other available funding sources for those costs.

But it also does help to explain

why public safety programs also experience

some of the larger impacts

when faced with a lack of available discretionary resources.

So turning now to look at some of the year-over-year changes in revenues,

for discretionary revenue,

the $943 million projected for 25-26

represents a $35 million,

or about 4% increase,

compared to the current adopted budget.

Property taxes of $659 million

are estimated to be up about $28 million,

or 4.5%,

which, while healthy,

is substantially lower than we were seeing

just a couple of years ago,

as continued high interest rates

have negatively impacted the volume of home sales.

Sales and use taxes are $145 million,

which is estimated to be up about $2 million,

or just 1.3%.

And this really reflects the continued flattening out

that we've seen in sales tax revenues in recent years.

And we're seeing that both local and statewide level.

I'll talk about it a little bit.

And then there's a net $5 million increase

in other taxes and revenues

due largely to utility user taxes

and some other revenue sources.

I think as we look at these numbers,

it is important to note

that our revenue assumptions here

do not reflect any impacts resulting from tariffs

or a potential economic downturn.

And there's, of course,

a great deal of uncertainty right now

and the potential that we could be looking

at negative impacts to revenues

as we move through the fiscal year

and into subsequent fiscal years.

So in addition to discretionary resources,

the county also receives semi-discretionary resources,

which include the various categories

of 1991 and 2011 realignment,

and then also Proposition 172,

public safety sales tax revenue.

So we refer to these sources as semi-discretionary

because there is some discretion

to allocate this funding to programs

in the county's social services

and public safety departments.

So many of them can be allocated

to more than one different department,

but not to any department.

They're not completely discretionary.

So it's important to understand

that this funding generally reimburses

eligible expenditures in the general fund

that otherwise would be funded

with discretionary resources.

The exception to this

is our CalWORKs-related realignment,

which offsets what the state

would otherwise contribute for that program.

So the non-CalWORKs-related revenue

in the semi-discretionary restricted funds

is kind of what we're looking at,

and that is budgeted at $819 million,

which is up just $9 million,

or about 1%.

So again, reflecting that same flattening out

of growth that we're seeing

in local sales tax revenues,

we're also seeing that at the statewide level

because these funding sources

are largely derived from statewide sales taxes.

The combined non-CalWORKs beginning fund balance

of $67 million is down $45 million

compared to the current budget year,

and that includes reserves of $64 million.

Overall, the non-CalWORKs reimbursements

to the general fund are $838 million,

which is a $12 million,

or about 1.4% reduction

compared to the current fiscal year,

and that also includes a $16 million use

of those reserves that I mentioned.

So again, I think this is important

because it's another area of one-time funding

that we have that's impacting the general fund budget.

So although it's not general fund fund balance,

it's fund balance in these semi-discretionary funds

that is also resulting in structural imbalance

in the general fund budget.

So the remaining category of revenue

in the general fund is non-discretionary

or departmental revenues,

and this is revenue that is specific

to programs within a department

and is used to fund eligible expenditures

in department budgets

before the use of discretionary

or semi-discretionary resources.

So the $1.9 billion total

is a net increase of $99 million,

or about 5.5%,

with some of the largest increases,

as you can see here,

in health services and human assistance.

I will point out listed here

that voter registration in elections

actually has about $7 million,

which for that department

is a very large 80% decrease

in revenue year over year,

and that's due largely

to a one-time state reimbursement

in 24-25 for prior year expenditures

as well as a decrease

in some election services charges.

But really, as a result

of this prior year one-time revenue

going away,

the discretionary resource use

is increasing compared to 24-25.

It's very consistent

with what it had been in prior years.

Also noted here at the bottom,

some departments are expecting

a loss in dedicated revenue

or what we call categorical revenue

for certain programs,

which in some cases

was requested to be backfilled

with discretionary resources,

and I will describe those impacts

on the later slide.

So as we turn out to talk

about the recommendations

regarding the appropriations

or the spending

in the general fund,

I wanted to spend some time

describing our budget approach.

I know David did that

a little bit earlier,

but I'll just go through it again

because I think it helps

kind of provide some context

for what we'll be talking about next.

So because we recognize

that there was likely

to be a shortfall

in the availability

of discretionary resources

relative to expenditures

and the fact that overall

there was a need

to better align ongoing spending

with ongoing resources,

our approach this year

was to ask departments

to submit budgets

showing what the impact

would be of not increasing

their use of discretionary resources.

So to do that,

each department had a target

that essentially kept

net county cost

at the fiscal year 24-25 level.

after making certain adjustments.

And one of those adjustments

that I want to mention

recognized that the county's

pension obligation bond

debt service

is decreasing

in fiscal year 25-26

relative to fiscal year 24-25.

And as a result of that,

those costs allocated out

to departments

would also be reduced.

At the same time,

our goal was really

to try to preserve

that funding capacity

that resulted from the fact

that we had decreased costs

to be available

for future county capital needs.

However, ultimately,

the recommendations

in this budget

do not preserve

that funding capacity

as we determined

that providing funding

for existing services

and obligations

was a higher priority.

So as I think David

mentioned earlier,

several departments

submitted budgets

that maintained

the existing level of service

with no increase

in net county cost.

So those included

some smaller budget units

as well as some larger ones

such as homeless services

and housing,

health services,

community development,

coroner, and probation.

And they did that

through a combination

of identifying efficiencies,

budgeting more realistically,

and leveraging

other funding sources.

So as just a few examples,

health services deleted

over 30 vacant positions

in their budget.

Coroner was able

to reduce contracted

transportation costs.

And homeless services

and housing was able

to leverage

departmental funding sources

to provide shelter capacity.

The departments

that identified the need

for additional

discretionary resources

in order to maintain

existing service levels

submitted reduction scenarios

indicating which programs

the department

would reduce

in priority order

should the requested

additional resources

not be available.

Departments requesting funding

for new or enhanced programs

submitted growth requirements

requests also

in priority order.

And then this information

was used along

with the board's budget

priorities to develop

the recommendations

for reductions

and growth.

Before you leave

the slide, Amanda?

I just want to go back

and put a finer point

on some of the comments

that our CEO shared

with us earlier

about process.

Because I think

it needs to be

very, very clear

before I suspect

some of you may

come to the podium

with concerns about

quote-unquote

public safety.

And that is relative

to the sheriff

and the DA's office.

Just, in other words,

we, the CEO

and the process

that you just again

referenced

in terms of

kind of the exercise

you ask all departments

to go through

and keep service levels

where they are,

don't use growth

in discretionary revenue.

It was completely left

to the department heads,

including the elected

department heads,

the sheriff and the DA,

and, you know,

and other department heads

like the head

of regional parks.

The CEO didn't say,

hey, cut X, Y, and Z.

You simply kind of

challenged them

to go do what

you just said, Amanda.

You come back

and you tell us,

because you know better,

you're department heads.

You tell us

where you meet

the challenge

that we've laid out

for you.

So it was completely

at the discretion

of all department heads,

including the sheriff,

including the DA,

that they brought forward

the programs

that would,

might need to be cut

and to kind of

meet this challenge

that you outlined

about service delivery

status quo

and less reliance

on one-time funding.

Is that fair?

Yes, that's fair.

I mean, I think,

you know,

I think what our direction was,

was, you know,

to the extent possible,

let's not impact

service levels, right?

Right.

If there is a way

to not increase

discretionary resource use

and not impact

service levels,

let's explore

all of those opportunities.

And to the extent

that's not possible,

asking the department

to identify

what the impact would be

of not receiving

those resources.

Thank you.

And the reason I want

to make that very abundantly

clear for everyone

is that I've seen,

as I suspect my colleagues have,

I've seen recent transmittals,

whether they be text messages

or emails,

that very, very unfairly,

and quite frankly,

it's not the truth,

that Mr. Villanueva

is the one

that is cutting.

It's Mr. Villanueva,

our CEO,

and Amanda,

who said,

here,

you need to help us

balance the budget.

We need you to do this,

but we're asking

for your input

about which programs

you would prioritize.

That was solely

at the discretion

of those department heads.

And I'm speaking directly

about mostly the DA's office

because, again,

I don't want folks

to march up to the podium,

point their finger

at the CEO

and say,

oh, the CEO

has suggested cutting

X, Y, and Z.

No,

that's not the truth.

So please keep that in mind

for everyone

that wants to specifically

address the DA's budget.

Thank you.

Okay, so looking...

Amanda.

Sorry,

it's Eric right here.

Yes.

Through the chair,

may I speak to that last point?

Sure.

Okay.

So, yes,

each,

speaking for the district attorney's office

and sheriff's office,

they provided a list

of prioritization

of what would meet

the given target.

I would say

the county executive's office

did give recommendations

on perhaps some alternatives

or other...

But that was after

they first came back

with their first list.

And so the CEO's office

saw what those lists were

and understanding

that some of those priorities

were extremely important

to our constituents

and their constituents

gave those department heads

another opportunity

and say,

can you please revisit

that priority list?

Is that true?

Correct.

Okay.

Patrick.

Thank you, Chair.

While we're on this subject,

thank you for that.

You know,

even more specifically,

and just to be really clear here,

government code section 25303

strictly prohibits

the board of supervisors

or the county executive

from telling the district attorney

or the sheriff

where to cut

when it comes to personnel

and programming.

So just as a hypothetical,

if,

and I've seen the same emails

as the chair,

if the message out there

was that the county executive

or the board of supervisors

is directing the district attorney

to cut

the misdemeanor unit,

that is simply not true.

That is at the discretion

of the district attorney.

So,

you know,

we cannot,

the board of supervisors

shall not obstruct

the investigative function

of the sheriff

of the county,

nor shall it obstruct

the investigative

or prosecutorial function

of the district attorney

of the county.

That's in the constitution

of the state of California.

So,

you know,

the misleading statements

that have been made

that this all rests

at the foot

of the county executive

are just that.

They are misleading.

Thank you,

Mr. Jones,

for your clarification.

Thank you,

Supervisor.

Appreciate that.

Supervisor Hume.

Thank you,

Chair.

And I appreciate,

and we're probably getting

over our skis a little bit

early on in the process here,

but I just want to put

another finer point

on what has been said

relative to what the chair

started the meeting with

in that budgets are

an expression of values.

And so the code section

that Supervisor Kennedy

just referenced is true

because the sheriff

and the DA

are elected officers

that constitutionally

we cannot tell them

how to spend their budget,

but we can tell them

how much their budget will be,

which is a different process

than the department heads

who come forward to say

we have been instructed

to prioritize maintenance

of existing services

without growth requests.

And so there is a nuanced

negotiation that takes place.

However,

going back to another analogy

that the chair made,

if the crazy uncle

doesn't put a deposit

into our bank account,

we now have to look

at what we cut,

and what we cut

is going to be

entertainment,

you know,

new clothes,

right?

Like, we're going to pay

our rent,

we're going to pay

the utilities,

and we're going to make sure

we keep food on the table

first.

So these are decisions

that do have to be made,

and they are made with the idea

of what are essential services

relative to the provisions

that have been put upon

these departments

by the people they serve.

So I just think

that's an important thing

to make as well.

I appreciate that,

and I would just say, too,

process is important,

and understanding

who has what say

in prioritization

is absolutely critical

in understanding

how we get to a place

of difficult decision making.

My comments were only aimed

at making very, very clear

that it's not anyone

but the DA and the sheriff

who have prioritized

what they have.

It's not the CEO,

it's not our CFO,

it's those elected

department heads.

Supervisor Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

and yeah,

I was expecting to bring

or maybe touch on this

later on,

but I'm glad we're having

this discussion

because ultimately

at the end of the day,

we may disagree

on where we end up

with some of these

appropriations,

but I think we all

are in agreement

on this point

that this board

does not control

where these county

elected officials

spend their dollars,

and process does matter,

and I think sometimes

there's miscommunication,

misunderstanding

of certain things,

but I appreciate

both of your statements

about this very point

and the chairs as well,

but I think something else

to keep in mind

is when Amanda Thomas

completes her budget,

she also has to identify

where those cuts

are specifically coming from.

So it's not just simply

an arbitrary exercise

where she has to identify

where these cuts

are coming from.

Is that right, Amanda?

You just can't say

one point however many million

from this department.

You have to be more specific

than that in the budget.

Yes, and first,

respectfully,

I will say it's not my budget.

Right, sorry.

It's the county's budget.

Your fingerprints are on it

more than anybody else

at this point.

But yes, I mean,

I think, you know,

what we are doing

when we're communicating

the budget and budget decisions

is trying to identify

what is going to result

from that, right?

And that's really reflecting,

again, what, you know,

what departments are telling us

in terms of what

those impacts would be,

and yes, we do have

to make decisions

about what can get funded

and what can't

based on the resources

that we have available.

Thank you.

Okay, so looking here,

really, again,

just at the total appropriations

in the general fund,

you can see that the total

$3.96 billion,

so again,

this is all funding sources

in the general fund.

That reflects a base service level,

so the cost of existing

service level next year

of $3.935 billion

with those categorical

or dedicated revenue reductions,

accounting for about $4 million.

Other reductions,

about $14 million,

and then we had,

as I mentioned,

recommended growth

of $43 million

in total appropriations

funded with all funding sources.

So I'm going to kind of walk

through each of these elements

on the following slides.

Okay, so first,

just looking at some

of the key factors

driving general fund

base appropriations,

which are the budget year cost

of current service levels,

again,

those include

department-identified efficiencies

resulting in cost savings,

as I mentioned earlier.

Also, as I mentioned earlier,

adjustments to better align

the budget with actual results,

so that included budgeting

for reasonable salary savings estimates

based on actual experience.

Also mentioned,

reflects the reduction

in the scheduled pension

obligation bond debt service payments,

reflects salary and benefit

cost increases

for county employees,

including an assumed

2.7% salary adjustment,

general inflationary impacts

on the cost of services

and supplies,

an increase in the county's share

of in-home supportive services

provider payments,

an increase in aid payments,

caseloads and costs,

funded with an increase

in related revenue,

reductions for one-time amounts

that were included

in the 24-25 budget,

and then a recommended decrease

in the general fund contingency

of $6 million,

which would bring the total

to $9 million.

And again,

consistent with the board's policy,

this amount was really determined

based on the uncertainty

that we're aware of

for the upcoming budget year

in terms of what some additional

expenditure needs might be.

So looking at those categorical

or dedicated funding reductions,

the budget reflects $4 million

of total expenditure reductions

resulting from a reduction

in dedicated revenue.

And of this amount,

$2 million was not requested

for backfill

with discretionary resources,

so that includes $1.5 million

in the sheriff's budget

for contract services

and one-time grants,

and then about $5 million

for child support services

due to a shortfall

in funding

from their state allocation.

The Department of Human Assistance

identified reductions

resulting from a shortfall

in CalFresh revenue,

and due to the critical nature

of that program,

13.5 positions

are restored

in that program

with discretionary resources

in the recommended budget.

Of the $1.7 million

total reduction recommended,

$1.4 million

results in the deletion

of 13 vacant positions,

and $300,000

results in the elimination

of a contract

assisting residents

in the South County.

The other significant

categorical reduction

is the elimination

of one vacant position

in the agricultural

commissioner budget,

and this is also due

to a loss of state funding.

So separate

from the categorical reductions,

$14 million

of other reductions

to net county cost

expenditures

are recommended

to balance

the general fund budget.

So these are the reductions

that result

from the impacts

that departments identified

of not receiving

an increase

in discretionary resources

year over year.

And of those

identified impacts,

approximately $20 million

was restored

or funded

in the recommended budget,

and the remaining $14 million

results

in the recommended

program reductions

here,

and those with the most

significant impact

are listed here.

So in the sheriff budget,

$8.1 million

of total appropriations

with $7.4 million

of net county cost,

which represents

about 1.9% less

than the total requested

base budget

for the department.

And the programs

identified for reduction

by the sheriff's office

include the concealed carry

weapons program,

the homeless outreach team,

problem-oriented policing,

and one position

in the marine unit.

And then funding

for other programs

was restored

based on the department's

identified priority order.

All of the positions

identified for a reduction

are either vacant

or the sheriff's office

identified that employees

would be moved

to a vacancy

of the same classification

within the department

so that ultimately

a vacant position

would be deleted.

In the district attorney budget,

the program identified

for reduction

by the district attorney's office

is the misdemeanor trials

and misdemeanor court review units

with the $1.8 million reduction

resulting in the deletion

of six positions

in that program.

Similar to the sheriff,

this reduction reflects

the department's ranking

of which program

to reduce first

with nearly $6 million

of other potential reductions

identified by the department

restored within the budget.

It should be noted

that while only one

of the six positions

was identified as vacant

by the department,

sufficient vacancies

existed for the other

five positions

at the time budget

recommendations

were finalized.

However, we do understand

that at least one

of those positions

has since been filled.

For regional parks,

recommended reductions

total $1.6 million

or about 8.4% lower

than the requested

based budget

resulting in the deletion

of two vacant positions,

extra help

and work crews

and contracts

for waterway support

and science education programs.

For the public defender,

recommended reductions

total $1 million

and include eliminating

one vacant position,

extra help

in the expungement

and records clearing program

and a reduction

to contract services

for the juvenile trauma

response court

and pretrial support programs.

The contract reduction

for the pretrial support program

is included

as a recommended growth

in the correctional health budget,

so there would be no impact

to this program

if that growth is approved.

For child, family,

and adult services,

the $400,000

in recommended reductions

include funding support

provided to the

Child Abuse Prevention Council

and the Sacramento County

Office of Education.

And then additionally here,

because internal services

departments

were also asked

to hold their costs

to other departments flat,

there are also

recommended reductions

to positions

in those departments

as shown here.

So while reductions

are needed

in the general fund,

we are also recommending

expenditures

on new or enhanced programs

or what we call growth

to address critical

net county cost funded needs

in the general fund.

And then also expenditures

funded with departmental revenues

in the general fund

and other funds.

Overall,

across all funds,

over $150 million

of departmental growth

requests were submitted.

The recommended budget

includes $43 million

for recommended

general fund growth

with $9 million

of that funded

with net county cost

and including

52 new positions

across all funding sources.

As you'll see,

most of that $9 million

in recommended

net county cost

funded growth

relates to board

priority number one,

county obligations,

and specifically

to compliance

with the May's consent decree.

And then additionally,

you'll see here,

similar to the approach

that we've taken

in recent years,

we are recommending

that another $20 million

in general fund growth

be prioritized

for inclusion

in the revised

recommended budget

in September

should sufficient

additional resources

be available

after funding

recommended reserves,

which I'll address

on a later slide.

And then,

non-general fund growth

represents an additional

$23 million

in total appropriations,

including 23

additional positions.

So for the general fund,

the most significant

recommended growth

is for the departments

listed here.

In the correctional

health budget unit,

$9 million

total is recommended,

including $6 million

of net county cost,

and again,

that's primarily

to support

the county's obligations

under the May's

consent decree

remedial plan.

This includes

$4 million