Colfax County faces roughly $1.3 million general-fund shortfall; commissioners order proportional cuts and vacancy trims

Colfax County commissioners were told May 27 that updated health‑insurance and county insurance cost estimates have pushed the preliminary FY‑26 general‑fund gap into the low‑millions range, and they instructed staff to pursue proportionate operating cuts and to remove selected vacant positions.

Justin Menard, county staff presenting the draft, said health insurance was increased by 20% in the model and the county insurance line (Department 114) was increased by 25% after discussions with New Mexico counties. “That also led to a substantial reduction in or an increase in the deficit rather from 380,000 to 514,000,” Menard said, and on the summary tab he showed “a net change of $2,000,000 deficit of which 381,000 is from nonrecurring expenditures … and that leads to a net of 1.56 as the current general fund deficit.” After a series of line‑by‑line reductions and vacancy eliminations discussed live during the workshop, Menard later updated the working figure to about $1.3 million.

Why it matters: the commission must adopt an interim budget and finalize FY‑26 numbers before the statutory deadlines that govern county budgets. Commissioners emphasized public‑safety and road services as priorities and warned that deeper cuts would risk layoffs.

Most important facts

- Insurance and benefits increases were the single largest driver of the change in the deficit; Menard said group health insurance was increased 20% and county insurance was increased about 25% in the draft.

- Menard presented three broad budget approaches: (1) targeted, line‑by‑line reductions; (2) an across‑the‑board percentage cut to operating expenditures and vacant positions; or (3) a middle approach that targets a portion (for example, 40–60%) of the current deficit.

- Commissioners directed staff to prepare a proportional (pro rata) reduction across general‑fund departments (excluding probate), to account for prior cuts already taken by some departments, and to return the updated interim budget for formal consideration.

Key decisions and live adjustments

During the workshop commissioners and staff made several live changes to the draft and instructed further work: Justin removed or prepared to remove specific vacant positions live in the spreadsheet (for example, the deputy clerk vacancy, a Rhodes equipment operator position and two detention‑center vacancies — see actions array). Staff were asked to show the adjusted general‑fund impact and to include credits for departments that had already reduced operating expenditures earlier in the year.

Commissioners repeatedly expressed reluctance to cut public‑safety staffing, and several said they would prefer to use a measured portion of reserve funds rather than cause immediate layoffs in high‑priority services. Commissioner Trujillo said using reserves should be weighed after proportional cuts are applied; Commissioner Kern and others said roads, sheriff and corrections are priorities for preserving staffing levels.

Next steps

Staff will produce an updated interim budget within the workshop time frame requested by the commission (Justin said he could update the model within about 15 minutes). That update will: (a) reflect the vacancy eliminations and line‑item reductions agreed on in the workshop; (b) compute and show a pro‑rata percentage allocation of the remaining general‑fund deficit across departments (crediting departments for cuts already made); and (c) identify residual shortfalls that commissioners may choose to cover from reserves or address at final budget.

Ending

Commissioners emphasized that the interim budget must be defensible and that any use of one‑time cash (reserves, interest earnings) should be clear to avoid repeating structural deficits in future fiscal years.