Davis County health department projects budget shortfall, flags possible cuts to senior services

Brian, a health department official, told the Davis County Budget Committee on Sept. 29 that the department faces a multi‑year funding shortfall as recent federal grants and some ARPA dollars wind down, and urged the commission to decide whether to use one‑time reserves, reduce services or seek new revenue.

The presentation to the Davis County Budget Committee in the Admin Building summarized revenue and expenditure projections for the department’s fund. Brian said health revenues are projected at about $12.5 million in FY2026 (an increase of roughly $240,000 compared with the prior year), while senior services revenues are expected near $3.3 million (down about $300,000). Property‑tax revenue was described as roughly $6.0 million; a public‑health infrastructure grant was pulled into 2026, temporarily boosting health revenue but creating a subsequent “cliff” if those funds are spent in a single year.

“The federal funding has disappeared,” Brian said, adding that some ARPA funds also expire next year. He told the committee the department is already trimming personnel — eliminating roughly 20 positions versus the prior year — and that personnel expenditures are down as a result. He warned: “We’re using one‑time money for ongoing operations,” a point echoed by the county controller’s five‑year fund projection.

Controller Scott Park described a projection that assumes a 3% annual turn‑back to reserves; under current assumptions the health fund’s balance would decline and could cross under recommended emergency reserve levels by 2028. Park said the county can sustain a downward slope for a few years but that relying on one‑time federal or pandemic funding for ongoing costs is not sustainable.

Brian quantified several budget pressures. He said that each 1% across‑the‑board employee increase costs his department about $90,000 per year and that payroll growth since 2019 has increased average employee pay roughly 30–33%, adding about $2.5 million in costs the department must cover. He noted operating appears to rise by about $1.6 million, but explained $1.5 million of that is a WIC voucher pass‑through that does not enter county coffers as net revenue.

Faced with a roughly $177,000 near‑term shortfall and a longer‑term run rate deficit Brian estimated at about $575,000 per year, he presented two balancing options: (1) a one‑year spend‑down of Fund 15 and other reserves to bridge the gap while seeking efficiencies, or (2) a property‑tax increase to maintain current services. He stressed the need to prioritize statutory responsibilities and local program choices if revenues decline.

Brian also outlined capital and one‑time requests that he said would make future budgets more predictable: a set of IT and infrastructure purchases (PC refresh, switches, door locks, cameras, Wi‑Fi access points) costing roughly $426,000 to establish a planned replacement cycle; and a $100,000 one‑time allocation to complete marketing and implementation for “Davis Links,” a county resource‑locator the health department is implementing. He said Fund 46 (capital) currently shows about $8 million but has substantial encumbrances, including about $3 million set aside for the I & M building project and $1.6–$1.8 million for another campus building purchase, plus a proposed $300,000 HVAC request.

On services, Brian warned that losing federal funding could force cuts to programs such as meals for homebound seniors and medical transportation. He said the department currently provides about 120,000 meals per year and that reductions in federal or state support would force choices about which services to preserve. “If the feds started these two programs, we’re out,” a committee member observed during the discussion; Brian said he is prioritizing to protect core statutory services.

Committee members asked whether the department could find efficiencies or shift costs across county partners. Brian and Scott Park said some efficiencies and attrition savings are likely to continue, but both cautioned those are uncertain and not a substitute for structural revenue if federal funds disappear.

At the start of the meeting the committee approved the minutes of the Sept. 23 meeting (voice vote; motion carried). No formal vote on the FY2026 health budget or the one‑time requests was recorded during this session.

What happens next: staff said they will continue to refine five‑year projections, track attrition savings, and bring follow‑up recommendations on whether to plan a transfer to capital or consider a property‑tax proposal. The controller’s projection suggests the county has a few years to decide, but the health department recommended beginning a concrete conversation about priorities and possible public messaging now.