Pueblo County commissioners discuss shifting budget methods; staff outlines zero‑base, priority and target options

County budget staff briefed the Pueblo County Board of County Commissioners on May 20 about alternative budget methodologies and the practical considerations of changing how the county prepares its annual budget.

Staff described the county’s current process as a hybrid that starts with prior‑year line items, adjusts those lines based on trends and departmental requests and then moves through multiple review cycles. The presentation summarized three alternatives: priority‑based budgeting (aligning dollars to board priorities and measurable outcomes), zero‑based budgeting (requiring justification for expenses each year starting from zero) and target‑based budgeting (setting percentage goals for reductions or increases in particular categories).

Budget staff told the board that Virginia‑era zero‑based budgeting requires more analysis and documentation and that any alternative would require enhanced data, monitoring and staff time. The board was reminded of key calendar constraints: the county audit typically concludes in August/September, the board learns final year‑end balances in September, and the board must adopt a budget by the Dec. 15 state deadline. Staff estimated that common year‑end carryover or timing discrepancies have ranged in the past “around $3 million to $4 million,” which commissioners said represents the near‑term wiggle room used to fund priorities.

Commissioners discussed tradeoffs. Several noted the county budget is heavily personnel‑driven, and elected offices and departments differ widely in how they operate, which complicates any single uniform approach. Commissioners expressed support for clearer priorities to guide funding decisions; some said they favored portions of zero‑based or target approaches while wanting to avoid an administrative burden that would let departments lose capacity to operate.

Board members and the county manager emphasized the need to be pragmatic and to design a method that pulls useful elements from multiple models rather than adopting a single rigid system. Commissioners asked staff to return with additional reporting from the county’s Workday finance system and to plan deeper conversations as the audit and year‑end reporting make carryover figures clearer later in the year.

Staff and commissioners repeatedly framed the discussion as exploratory and said no formal change would be implemented this year; instead, they asked for follow‑up briefings and modeling ahead of the budget season.