Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public health leaders warn fee increases or county aid needed to avoid cuts after FY26 planning
Summary
Deschutes County Public Health presented a plan at the Jan. 27 retreat that would close much of a projected $1.8 million shortfall through clinic closures, vacancy savings and possible environmental-health fee increases; staff urged commissioners to consider short-term county support or preserves video-lottery allocations to avoid staff cuts.
Deschutes County Public Health managers told commissioners Jan. 27 that the department faces a roughly $1.8 million total funding gap going into fiscal year 2026 and outlined options to close it, including program reductions, fee increases in environmental health, and one-time county support.
Public Health Deputy Director Heather Kaiser summarized the department's planning work: "we met as managers, public health managers. We had a retreat 2 weeks ago and really looked at our budget for where we know that today, based on what Charlotte has given us, where we can find additional savings this fiscal year heading into next fiscal year." Kaiser and Business Officer Cheryl Smallman said the department has already taken steps this year, including closing the reproductive-health clinic and trimming discretionary spending, and is targeting additional vacancy savings and grant revenue. "Our target was $1,800,000," Kaiser said.
The nut graf: staff said the gap can be partly closed with program reductions and administrative savings, but environmental health—the county function that inspects restaurants, septic systems and other regulated facilities—would likely need fee increases or county subsidy if revenue previously directed to community services is not restored. Smallman told the board that keeping local video lottery allocations (a county funding source that had been redirected) at current levels would avoid the need for a 14% fee increase in environmental health in one scenario.
Public health managers provided a menu of scenarios and their likely impacts: a combination of clinic closure, FTE reductions already made, vacancy savings and grant-seeking could reduce the gap substantially; but they warned that many environmental health fees are already near peer-county levels and that further increases would be difficult for small businesses to absorb. Smallman cautioned that some revenue streams (inspections and fee seasonality) make exact projections uncertain: "a lot of our environmental health fees come in, this month and next month. So I don't have a full picture yet of what our final budget's going to be around that."
Commissioners asked for specifics and for staff to bring back refined proposals and an explicit comparison of the trade-offs. Several commissioners signaled willingness to consider one-year county support from discretionary reserves (including video lottery funds) if that would buy time for state public-health-modernization funding to materialize. Staff said the governor's proposed public-health modernization funding at the state level is not yet sufficient to plug the gap and cannot be relied on for immediate general-fund support.
Ending: Public health leaders will return to the budget process with detailed options for the board and the budget committee; commissioners asked staff to prepare clear descriptions of which services would be reduced under each scenario, and the timeline for any proposed fee changes.
