There have been a lot of conversations about Mesa County’s budget lately, and I think people deserve to understand not only what we are doing, but why.

Government budgets can get complicated quickly. We start talking about TABOR, reserves, intergovernmental revenue, vacancy savings and unfunded mandates, and pretty soon we’ve made something unnecessarily difficult to understand.

At its core, the principle is simple: Ongoing expenses should be supported by ongoing revenues. Getting there is more complicated, particularly when a significant portion of county government is affected by decisions made in Denver and Washington.

This has not been a sudden exercise for Mesa County. It has been a multiyear process of improving our financial systems, reducing expenses, evaluating programs and asking fundamental questions about how county government operates.

Last year, we made a roughly 10 percent across-the-board budget reduction, offered voluntary separation packages and looked throughout the organization for additional savings. We also drew approximately $8 million from reserves. Importantly, the financial pressure from state unfunded mandates was nearly equivalent to what we had to draw from reserves.

I think that context matters. When the state requires counties to provide or expand services without providing sufficient funding to pay for them, those costs do not disappear. Local government — and ultimately local taxpayers — has to absorb them somewhere.

Reserves can help manage those pressures temporarily. They cannot become a permanent funding source for recurring expenses.

The roughly 10 percent reduction last year was an important step. This year, because we began earlier and have better financial information, we have an opportunity to go deeper than a uniform percentage and examine the actual programs, services, costs and revenues behind the numbers.

That is why we started the 2027 budget process in March. Mesa County began a priority-based review of programs based on statutory requirements, community reach, cost, scope and scale to residents. That work identified approximately roughly $4 million in programming, efficiencies and potential reductions.

Preliminary requests from departments and elected offices then exceeded our conservatively projected available revenue by approximately $12.5 million.

That distinction is important. Mesa County did not suddenly “lose” $12.5 million, nor does that number mean the county has a $12.5 million operating deficit today. Department heads and independently elected offices submit budget requests based on anticipated staffing, programs, mandates and operational needs. Our job during the budget process is to reconcile those requests with the revenue we can responsibly project will actually be available.

Right now, we are intentionally conservative on the revenue side. Sales-and-use-tax collections have recently performed somewhat better than budget, which is encouraging. But we do not know what the economy will deliver until actual collections come in. Building permanent expenses around optimistic revenue assumptions would be easy. It would not be prudent.

As we receive better revenue information this fall, the picture will become clearer. Until then, we budget conservatively and adjust based on real information rather than build a budget around money we hope will arrive.

At the same time, state and federal funding is changing. That matters because some of our largest departments rely heavily on those outside dollars. Approximately 80 percent of Mesa County Human Services funding comes from state and federal sources. Public Health also receives significant outside funding tied to specific programs.

When Washington or Denver ends a grant, reduces an allocation or changes a program, Mesa County cannot automatically replace those dollars locally. Programs that rely heavily on outside funding eventually have to adjust to the funding actually available.

That is why we are looking at this budget from every angle. We are asking whether programs are mandated, how many people they serve, what outcomes they produce and whether another county program, community organization or private-sector provider is already doing similar work. We are examining vacancies before filled positions. We are reviewing purchasing, contracts, fees and administrative functions for duplication and opportunities to work more efficiently.

We are also examining our physical footprint. If Mesa County owns property that is no longer necessary to deliver county services, we should ask whether taxpayers should continue paying to operate, maintain and eventually improve it.

That includes significant assets such as Faith Heights. If county property can be responsibly transitioned or sold, those proceeds could be directed toward high-priority, one-time needs rather than creating another recurring obligation. One-time money should generally solve one-time problems — capital investments, reducing liabilities or strengthening reserves — rather than create permanent expenses that require another funding source tomorrow.

Another major piece of this work has been happening somewhat quietly for the past three years: modernizing Mesa County’s financial infrastructure.

Three years ago, we began transitioning from our former Eden financial system to Workday, an integrated financial and human-resources platform. For a period, we operated both systems as we transitioned, and last year we completed the move to Workday across the organization.

That may sound like a software change. It is much more than that. Instead of different parts of county government operating through separate systems and processes, we now have a much clearer countywide financial picture built around a common platform.

If a grant pays for an employee position, we should be able to clearly associate that position with its funding source and know when that funding ends. A temporary grant should not quietly become a permanent general-fund obligation because the connection between the funding and the position was difficult to see.

If multiple departments are purchasing the same product or service, we should be able to identify that and leverage Mesa County’s combined purchasing power.

Employees have greater transparency into compensation and the county’s contribution toward their benefits. Purchasing approvals and contracts can follow more consistent processes. Our governing boards, elected officials, management and finance teams can work from a clearer and more consistent financial picture. That is transparency, but it is also efficiency.

Now that the system is in place, we can begin realizing more of those efficiencies. That is part of the reason we are mapping financial processes and consolidating certain finance functions into a stronger countywide team.

External audits over several years have identified opportunities to improve consistency in internal controls, reconciliations, supervisory review and documentation. As we strengthen financial controls while we reduce duplication, and improve backup coverage, we are creating a stronger team.

TABOR adds another layer. Mesa County’s estimated 2026 TABOR refund is approximately $5.4 million. Our responsibility is to plan and operate responsibly to deliver that refund to our citizens.

There are also realities we cannot control: inflation; health care costs; interest rates; federal priorities; and state mandates that arrive without sufficient funding. What we can control is our response.

Last year, a 10 percent across-the-board reduction was one of the tools we used to respond quickly and responsibly. This year, starting earlier gives us an opportunity to be more precise. Rather than relying on one tool, we can look individually at programs, vacancies, properties, purchasing, administrative functions and funding sources.

We should understand every dollar: where it comes from, what obligation is attached to it, what result it produces and whether there is a better way to accomplish the same goal.

And behind all of those dollars are people. Mesa County has talented elected officials, department heads and employees who genuinely have a heart for service. Organizational change is not an indictment of the people who have served us well. In many cases, we are asking good people to adapt to circumstances they did not create, and we owe them honesty, respect and thoughtful leadership through that process.

This work is not about finding one big cut or balancing one year’s spreadsheet. It is about creating a more transparent, efficient and sustainable Mesa County — one that understands its true costs, lives within its means, protects high-priority services and can adapt when circumstances change.

We cannot control every decision coming out of Denver or Washington, and we cannot predict every turn in the economy.

We have to do more often with less, and that is a challenge that brings creative solutions and often hard choices. As we look at every dollar, every property, every vacancy, every program and every process we control, we ask a simple question: Can we do this better?

Bobbie Daniel is a Mesa County commissioner, representing District 2.