Commissioners addressed a common misconception that the Board can spend county tax dollars on any initiative.

Commissioner Juanita Vero and colleagues said about two-thirds of county funds come from grants and fee-for-service revenue that carry restrictions and conditions on use, while local property-tax revenue makes up roughly one-third of the county's revenue mix. They cautioned residents not to assume those dollars are fully discretionary.

Commissioners noted voter-approved measures and bonds can create additional revenue streams that lie outside statutory caps but are constrained by ballot language. The open-space bond used to acquire Marshall Mountain, they said, is an example: bond proceeds were dedicated by ballot to open-space purchases and conservation-related actions.

They described the statutory obligations that consume most property-tax funding: the county must fund courts, jails, public works and other state-mandated services. Commissioners estimated roughly 80'285% of the portion of the budget funded by property taxes pays for those obligations, leaving a small discretionary slice for issues such as housing or homelessness interventions.

On the limits to raising revenue, the commissioners said annual increases in property-tax revenue are typically constrained by a cap tied to the rate of inflation, though newly taxable property adds incremental revenue and voter-approved measures can exceed the cap.

They encouraged residents seeking new services to pursue grants or ballot measures rather than expect existing property-tax revenue to be freely reallocated.