S.J. County proposes $1.75 billion budget
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday released a proposed $1.75 billion budget for the 2018-19 fiscal year, a $112.7 million increase from last year.
All of the county’s operating costs would be funded by ongoing revenues under the proposed budget, and $5.8 million would be added to the county’s reserve fund for a total of $87.4 million set aside for contingencies in the coming fiscal year.
"We will continue our focus on upholding county reserve policies, negotiating affordable labor agreements, funding critical capital needs, limiting the issuance of debt, and increasing contributions towards the county's unfunded pension liability,” said county administrator Monica Nino.
Following a 5-0 vote to approve the proposed budget, chief deputy county administrator Sandra Regalo began a public hearing to approve a total of $7,291,644 in fee increases for departments including environmental health.
Revenue sources such as sales and property taxes fund services that benefit the general public including jails, welfare and certain health programs, Regalo said, while user, licensing and assessment fees help pay for services that benefit private parties such as property development, business activities and animal ownership.
The county cannot charge more than the actual cost of the services, Regalo said, and the county might not be able to cover the costs if special revenue rates do not increase along with them.
The San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department proposed a $175,743 fee increase, including a 6-percent increase for its food protection, water wells (including public wells), liquid waste and medical waste programs.
Director Linda Turkatte said the department’s underground storage tank program has consistently had the largest revenue shortage, and that installing tanks such as those used to store fuel typically takes approximately 26 hours.
Customers currently pay for eight of those hours up front, approximately $1,216, Turkatte said, with the rest paid once the work is finished.
Customers would pay for 20 hours up front under the proposed changes, Turkatte said, approximately $3,040 for an increase of almost 200 percent.
If adopted, these changes would result in approximately $99,045 in revenue from underground tank fees and $23,600 from water well fees for the upcoming fiscal year.
Last fiscal year, the underground tank program cost approximately $976,273, Turkatte said, but the department only received $269,853 from fees leaving a deficit of 72 percent.
“Even with the proposed significant fee increase for next fiscal year, the revenue deficit will still be over 60 percent, and additional increases are expected to be proposed in the next budget to further close this gap,” Turkatte said. “Consistent with our fee review process, any future fee proposals will be based on the review of actual workload data and revenue data representing current conditions. A large increase is being requested at this time for this program because it would take decades to close this sizable revenue gap with smaller increases over time.”
Due to a lack of trained staff, Turkatte said, the department has had to pull staff from other projects to work on the tank program, forcing them to cut other services.
Supervisor Chuck Winn supported the majority of fee increases for the environmental health department, but said that such a large increase for the tank project might shock business owners and cause them to potentially move out of the county.
Winn suggested that the underground tank fees be increased by 50 percent for next fiscal year before being reviewed annually to determine if they need to be raised further.
“One thing I would offer in regards to gradual increase, at least by next year you’ll have a chance to assess if this increase is working of if it needs to go higher. I’m not trying to overwork you or your staff, but I think this can be done incrementally,” Winn said.
Bruce Blodgett, executive director of the San Joaquin Farm Bureau, said that although the majority of farms in the county no longer use underground storage tanks, many of their transportation providers do.
If the county raises fees for the transportation providers, Blodgett said, the providers would in turn raise their costs for farmers.
“We were quite alarmed to see the fees and we’re quite alarmed to see what they’ll be moving forward ... I think anything that is less of an increase is certainly preferred,” Blodgett said.
The board voted 4-1 to approve the amended changes to the environmental health department’s fees, with Supervisor Kathy Miller casting the lone dissenting vote.