Adams County staff present draft FY2026 budget priorities and FTE recommendations; commissioners press for follow‑up on bond, service and fee recoveries

County staff opened a study session on the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget and asked the Board of Commissioners for feedback on recommended ongoing requests, primarily FTE additions and business cases.

Key numbers and overview

Staff said the current draft budget includes a 2.75% across‑the‑board annual employee increase (AEI) and market range adjustments for pay bands but does not automatically move employees within those bands. The staff recommendation, based on the county’s revenue/expense model, was to fund about 19.25 new FTE for the general fund (about 21 FTE all funds when including two positions in other funds). Staff described an existing operating gap in the county’s baseline — on the order of tens of millions of dollars — and warned commissioners that the county expects a material reduction in revenue pressure for 2027 that will require careful multi‑year planning.

Commissioners and staff discussed fiscal sustainability and a 2027 “cliff.” Staff characterized the county’s operating shortfall as a multiyear management problem and said the recommended new FTE and contract increases had been chosen to be sustainable under current projections. Briefly stated figures discussed in the study session included a roughly $40,000,000 operating gap and an expected approximate $20,000,000 drop in revenue in 2027 tied to property tax reductions and abatement changes; staff said those numbers were model inputs and subject to refinement.

Notable FTE/business recommendations and debates

- Sheriff program for semiautomatic‑weapon permits: the sheriff proposed creating a new permitting program. Staff recommended funding a smaller startup staff (two FTE recommended initially, with earlier requests seeking more). Commissioners strongly urged that the program be fee‑supported and that the county recoup all implementation costs (space, equipment, staff) from permit fees to avoid general‑fund subsidy. Staff and commissioners asked for a plan to track cost recovery and suggested treating the program as its own fund if necessary. Commissioners also emphasized the need to right‑size the program to reflect statutory requirements and expected permit volumes.

- Community Safety, Well‑Being and Homelessness positions: staff recommended making certain homelessness/outreach positions permanent after several years of grant funding; commissioners discussed the dependency of these programs on grant streams and the need to plan for “cliff” funding scenarios.

- Digital accessibility manager and IT staffing: commissioners debated the classification and scope of a proposed digital accessibility manager—whether the role should be a manager (with managerial pay and responsibilities) or a specialist focused on technical implementation. Staff explained the role would include countywide compliance and coordination and likely have dotted‑line influence across departments. IT also requested a project manager for a project support office; staff recommended prioritizing that role now and phasing other data and cloud positions for later years after strategy work is complete.

- Market and pay considerations: staff noted that market adjustments and pay‑range changes were being considered, and that the 2.75% AEI was intended to help retention in a constrained labor market while smoothing budget effects into 2027.

Selected business‑case items called out in discussion

- Bus‑stop amenity program: staff proposed a multi‑year pilot for bus stop upgrades and art activation; commissioners were divided. Some commissioners argued the county should fund upgrades for unsafe, non‑ADA stops in Adams County and keep the proposal in the budget but return with more detailed phasing and cost allocations; other commissioners said municipal partners or RTD commonly manage stops and asked for more analysis before committing county funds. Staff agreed to return with more detail and noted these capital/maintenance choices would create ongoing maintenance obligations.

- Open Space and park maintenance allocations: staff allocated funding for ongoing maintenance and smaller capital projects (line items discussed around $450,000 in the open space projects fund); commissioners asked for clearer priorities, project lists and for staff to present options tied to master plans and equitable distribution across the county.

- Head Start fund support: staff explained the county covers a portion of Head Start staffing costs because federal grants do not fully cover local pay scales; the Head Start program cost reported in the session was roughly $7 million, with county transfers filling part of the gap so staff and teachers have parity with county pay plans.

Next steps and follow‑up requests

Commissioners asked staff to provide additional detail on several items, including a cost‑recovery plan for the sheriff’s permit program, a breakdown of business vs. nonnegotiable contract increases, a staffing/study history for large requests (for example, the jail and sheriff staffing studies), a clearer phasing schedule and budget implications for bus‑stop upgrades, and additional benchmarking for proposed managerial titles (for example the digital accessibility manager) versus specialist classifications. Staff agreed to return with more detail at upcoming study sessions.

Ending

Staff characterized the FY2026 budget as a working document and asked the board for further direction; commissioners and staff scheduled additional study sessions and asked for targeted follow‑up analysis on fee recovery, staffing studies, and project prioritization.