Davis County health fund faces multiyear decline as federal relief wanes, department warns

Brian (department) presented the Davis County Health Department’s proposed 2026 budget to the Davis County Budget Committee on Sept. 29, saying the department faces a multi‑year funding cliff as federal and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars decline.

“Health department’s taken very specific hits recently with a lot of federal funding that has disappeared,” Brian said, adding that ARPA funding in the department will run out by the end of this year or by the end of 2026. He said the department has projected revenue of about $12,500,000 for public health and about $3,300,000 for senior services in 2026, and that property taxes are projected at roughly $6,000,000.

Brian said personnel expenditures are down in the 2026 proposal after eliminating roughly 20 positions compared with last year and that the department expects to reduce payroll costs by more than $1 million. “That’s estimated just over 20 positions that we have eliminated from last year to this year,” he said. He also noted one‑time passthrough items — primarily Women, Infants and Children (WIC) vouchers — inflate both revenues and expenditures and do not represent recurring county revenue.

Nut graf: The presentation framed a structural gap between ongoing costs — chiefly personnel and allocations — and projected recurring revenues. Department leaders and County Controller Scott Park told the committee the county can sustain the current course for several years by drawing on fund balances, but will need to decide whether to reduce services, use reserves for ongoing costs, or plan for a property‑tax increase.

In the detailed discussion, Brian said the department is projecting a modest shortfall of about $177,000 for 2026 that was anticipated and can be covered temporarily from fund balance. He said Fund 15 (the combined health and senior services fund) had a current balance of about $10.8 million and is projected to end the year near $11.5 million; the department has previously transferred money from Fund 15 into Fund 46 (capital) for building projects. Fund 46 is reported at about $8.1 million but carries encumbrances: roughly $3.0 million for the I & M building project and about $1.6–$1.8 million for another campus building the department is considering purchasing. Brian said he is requesting roughly $300,000 from Fund 46 for an HVAC project in the main building to begin in the coming months.

Scott Park (controller) presented five‑year fund balance projections and said his modeling assumes a 3% annual turnback (savings from attrition and one‑time savings) and modest revenue growth; under that scenario the health fund will begin to cross below recommended reserve levels by about 2028. “We are starting to spend down the fund balance for ongoing operational expenses,” Park said, and while a tax increase is not immediately required, the county will need to address the trajectory within the next few years if conditions do not change.

Committee members pressed on services that would be affected if the department reduces spending. Brian noted some senior services and nutrition programs already face waiting lists and that reductions would likely hit the most vulnerable, such as homebound seniors who receive Meals on Wheels. He said federally funded programs such as WIC and certain workforce grants have historically funded specific activities and that when that funding declines the department must either stop the program or use county property tax dollars to continue it.

Brian also asked the committee to approve a set of one‑time purchases intended to normalize ongoing costs going forward: roughly $426,000 for IT infrastructure and device replacement to restart a systematic replacement cycle, plus $100,000 as a one‑time allocation to complete implementation and marketing of Davis Links (a resource‑locator platform). He said the department has the available fund balance to cover those one‑time requests but cautioned that ongoing operations should not be supported indefinitely by one‑time reserves.

The committee approved the Sept. 23 meeting minutes with a spelling correction earlier in the meeting. No formal vote was taken on tax changes, program eliminations, or the department’s one‑time requests during this session; those items were discussed for future committee consideration.

The session included multiple questions from elected members and staff on prioritization of services, the role of county statutory responsibilities, and the balance between maintaining staff compensation and preserving service levels. Brian said personnel cost pressure is significant — he estimated roughly $90,000 per 1% salary increase for his fund — and that personnel and allocations have grown faster than property tax revenues.

Ending: Committee members and staff agreed to continue monitoring revenues and fund balances, to consider targeted one‑time investments to stabilize infrastructure needs (IT and Davis Links), and to return to the question of long‑term funding options — including whether to plan for a property tax increase or to identify permanent program reductions — in future budget hearings.