Custer County public health staff outline $90,000 budget gap, order AEDs and set accounting fixes

Custer County public health staff told the Board of Health at a budget workshop that their 2026 request assumes about $438,000 in grant and other revenue while projected expenses run about $526,000, leaving a shortfall of roughly $88,000–$92,000 that the county would need to cover.

The shortfall matters because most of the uncovered expenses are salaries, benefits and insurance lines paid from county funds rather than grant accounts; workshop participants spent most of the meeting tracing how earlier accounting and coding choices have made current rollover and revenue estimates uncertain.

Public health administrators and county finance staff walked through three years of actuals and the '26 request, describing multiple instances in which grant deposits, payroll and invoices were coded to the wrong account and saying a detailed reconciliation is needed before certifying final numbers. Vernon (county finance staff) said he had plugged the health department’s submitted numbers into the county budget system so the group could see the “bottom line” and test scenarios; health staff said the department will go line‑by‑line through each grant and historical receipts to confirm rollover balances.

Staff reported several recurring problems: state and other grant payments sometimes arrive in lump sums or as checks with sparse descriptors; deposits have occasionally been posted to the wrong grant line; and previous payroll coding sometimes charged salaries to a general county salary line rather than splitting hours across grant codes. Health staff said that practice (and legacy errors dating back to earlier administrations) has made the department’s rollover estimates uncertain and requires journal‑voucher adjustments to reassign funds correctly. The department asked for time to reconcile ledgers and said it will bring corrected figures to the commissioners before certification.

The workshop included a technical discussion of how federal, state and local grants treat indirect costs and contract expenses. County finance staff said some grants allow contract labor and certain contract services to be charged directly; participants agreed to add explicit contract service and contract‑labor codes to the health department’s budget so portions of IT, laptop support and contracted nursing services can be billed where allowable. The group instructed staff to check each grant’s documentation and to follow the county’s cost‑allocation policy when splitting shared expenses across grants.

On staffing and payroll questions, participants clarified that paid time off (PTO) payouts generally come from county funds rather than from grant revenue, and recommended that the department estimate PTO liabilities for full‑time employees in the budget. Health staff said they will also standardize “percentage of effort” tracking so employees’ hours can be coded consistently across multiple grants.

The board reviewed several specific budget moves and operational decisions. Staff said they will: (a) schedule standing monthly reconciliation meetings with county finance to expedite corrections and journal vouchers, (b) complete a line‑by‑line reconciliation of each grant before final certification, and (c) add or amend budget lines so allowable contract IT services and contract nurses can be charged to certain grants. Those items were recorded as staff directions to implement; no formal commission vote was taken at the workshop.

The workshop also covered near‑term purchases and grant opportunities. Public health announced it had ordered five automated external defibrillators (AEDs) to place at county facilities and in community locations; staff noted current unit pricing around $1,700 each after a manufacturer rebate of about $200 per unit and said leftover budget lines from this year could be used to make the purchases now and be restored in the 2026 request. The department presented a voluntary plan to offer partial county funding for additional units to other county entities and to reassign older functioning units to schools and other public sites.

Separately, staff described a regional chronic‑disease pilot that reopened to smaller counties; Phase 1 offers up to $30,000 (six‑month project period) and Phase 2 would be a two‑year follow‑on. The application window was brief and staff asked the board whether to pursue the Phase 1 award; board members asked staff to bring a short proposal and, if feasible, the department indicated it would proceed with a submittal by the stated deadline.

Where the money comes from and how it is tracked was a recurring theme. Participants noted that grant funds are not separate bank accounts but are tracked in the county’s chart of accounts; when deposits are misposted they must be moved by journal voucher. County finance staff reminded the group that every expense must ultimately be authorized by the Board of County Commissioners and that some fund transfers are limited by statute or grant conditions (the group discussed the county’s removal of state TABOR limits as background for accepting grant revenue).

Next steps outlined at the end of the workshop included a prioritized reconciliation plan: health staff will produce corrected rollover estimates for each grant, identify funds that can be shifted to cover allowable contract services, and present an updated budget for the commissioners to approve before certification. Staff also committed to regular monthly check‑ins with finance to reduce future coding errors and to prepare status updates for the Board of Health and county commissioners.

The workshop was presented as a planning session rather than a final budget vote; staff emphasized that the budget will be revised as reconciliations are completed and as state and federal grant decisions are finalized.