A county budget is more than a financial document. It is a statement of priorities. Each year, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors adopts a budget that funds public safety, behavioral health, child welfare, homelessness services, roads, parks, economic development and many other programs that affect the lives of more than 1.6 million residents. This year’s budget was nearly $8.9 billion.
With a budget that large and complex, the public deserves confidence that elected officials have the time, information and opportunity to ask questions, review options and make thoughtful decisions before a final vote is taken. That is why I believe Sacramento County should improve its budget process.
When people hear that the county adopts an $8.9 billion budget, it is easy to assume the Board of Supervisors can simply move money from one department to another. In reality, much of the county budget is restricted by law. Enterprise funds, state funding and federal dollars are often limited to specific uses. Money intended for one purpose cannot always be redirected to another, which makes the locally controlled portion of the budget even more important.
These discretionary and semi-discretionary dollars are where the Board has the greatest ability to set policy priorities. This is where elected officials make choices about competing needs, whether that means public safety, homelessness, roads, behavioral health, parks or other county services. Because those decisions matter, the process matters.
County staff play an essential role in developing a balanced budget. Their work is difficult, detailed and important. Sacramento County is fortunate to have professionals who spend months preparing the recommended budget and ensuring the county meets its legal and financial obligations. But staff recommendations are still recommendations, and the Board of Supervisors is elected to deliberate, ask questions, consider public input, make amendments when appropriate and ultimately adopt the budget on behalf of the public.
One of the concerns I have heard, and share, is that our current process does not give the Board or the public enough time to fully evaluate the recommended budget before final adoption. Too often, major decisions are presented, discussed and acted upon in a compressed timeline. That limits the ability of supervisors to ask follow-up questions, work through alternatives, understand the impact of reductions and consider amendments.
That is not the best way to make decisions involving billions of taxpayer dollars. Other counties and cities often provide more time between the initial budget presentation and final adoption. That additional time allows elected officials to review the details, ask departments for more information, hear from the public and bring forward thoughtful amendments before the final vote. Sacramento County should consider adopting a similar approach.
A comparison of recent budget timelines shows how much time neighboring jurisdictions provided between their public budget hearings and final adoption:
This is not about delaying action. Deliberation is not delay. It is one of the most important duties of elected office. Good deliberation gives residents confidence that decisions were not made behind closed doors or rushed through a hearing. It allows the public to understand not only what was adopted, but why. It also gives supervisors a real opportunity to compare priorities and make sure limited local dollars are being spent where they will have the greatest impact.
A better process could begin earlier in the year with a Board workshop focused on budget priorities. Supervisors could publicly discuss the goals they want reflected in the budget before staff finalizes recommendations. The recommended budget could then be presented with enough time for department briefings, public testimony, follow-up questions and proposed amendments before final adoption.
This would not require rewriting county government. It would simply create a more transparent and thoughtful process. For example, the Board could hold a budget priorities workshop early in the year, receive the recommended budget in May, spend the following weeks reviewing discretionary and semi-discretionary funding, and then hold a final adoption hearing after supervisors and the public have had time to evaluate the proposal.
That kind of structure would benefit everyone. It would give staff clearer direction. It would give supervisors more time to make informed decisions. It would give residents a better opportunity to participate. And it would help ensure that budget decisions reflect current priorities, not just historical spending patterns.
This proposal is not about revisiting one budget vote or relitigating past decisions. It is about improving the process going forward. The county faces serious financial challenges. That makes the budget process even more important, not less. When resources are limited, every dollar should be carefully evaluated. Every program should be tied to outcomes. Every major decision should receive the level of public discussion it deserves.
Residents entrust county government with billions of taxpayer dollars each year. They deserve to know that their elected representatives had the time to ask difficult questions, consider alternatives and make decisions in the open. Good government depends on more than good intentions. It depends on a process that supports transparency, accountability and informed decision-making.
Sacramento County should have a budget process that reflects the importance of the decisions being made. Our residents deserve nothing less.
If you would like to share your thoughts with me, you can reach my office at 916-874-5491 or email SupervisorRodriguez@saccounty.gov
Rosario Rodriguez authored this community commentary. Rodriguez is the Sacramento County District 4 Supervisor, which includes the communities of Folsom, Rio Linda, Elverta, Antelope, North Highlands, Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Rancho Murieta, Sloughouse.
Copyright © 2025, Folsom Times, a digital product of All Town Media LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
