County clerk proposes split of clerk and auditor offices; commission asked to consider resolution by Nov. 1

Grand County’s Clerk-Auditor told the commission on Oct. 7 he plans to seek a formal county resolution to split the combined clerk and auditor offices, citing expanded statutory duties and concerns about maintaining compliance and performance if the offices remain combined.

Dave, the county’s Clerk-Auditor, told commissioners the statute governing separation requires a resolution by Nov. 1 of the year before the election if the county intends to create separate elected offices. “There’s a deadline of, November 1 to for the commission to consider passing a resolution, that would formalize this type of split to be reflected in the 2026 election cycle,” he said.

Why it matters: The clerk said the county’s scale and statutory workload have grown over the past 10–15 years and that specialization would improve performance on election administration, fiscal duties and statutory compliance. The clerk said the lieutenant governor’s elections office supports separating the two roles and that a restructuring would allow candidates to run explicitly for clerk or auditor in 2026.

Staffing and timeline: The clerk proposed bringing an existing finance director position physically into the clerk’s office and voluntarily reducing a staffed headcount from six to five as part of the longer-term restructure; he said the formal reorganization would take place in January 2027 if the commission passes the required resolution before Nov. 1. The clerk said he intends to run for the clerk office under the new structure and would leave the auditor role open for another candidate.

Commission discussion: Commissioners asked how the proposed staffing changes would affect current workloads before the formal split. The clerk said the finance director hired earlier in 2024 could be integrated into the office to help cover transactional duties and that bringing that person physically into the office would reduce disruption. Commissioners asked for analysis on compensation, election timing and comparative practices in other Utah counties.

Next steps: The clerk said he is working with the county attorney on language for the resolution and that the commission could consider it at the Oct. 21 meeting. No formal vote was taken Oct. 7.

Ending: Commissioners asked for follow-up details on the fiscal impact, job descriptions and how the change would be communicated to voters; staff said a draft resolution would be ready for the commission’s next meeting so the commission can meet the statutory Nov. 1 deadline if it chooses to proceed.