Davis County clerk outlines 2026 budget, proposes small fee increases and reports election cost savings

County Clerk Brian McKenzie told the Davis County Budget Committee that the Clerk’s Office is forecasting a modest net budget increase next year as rising personnel costs and election staffing needs outpace savings and new revenues.

McKenzie said the office’s proposed adjustments include a $10 fee for in‑office marriage ceremonies, a $5 increase to the county portion of marriage license fees, and an increase in the office’s passport photo charge from $10 to $15. He described those changes as efforts to offset rising personnel and operating costs while keeping core services for residents.

The changes are proposals; the committee did not record a formal vote on the fee adjustments during the presentation. “We’re looking at the cost of the camera, the film, and the staffing,” McKenzie said when explaining the passport photo change. He added that the Department of State sets passport application fees and the county cannot change those amounts.

Why it matters: the Clerk’s Office administers elections, issues passports and marriage licenses, maintains voter registration rolls and county records, and serves as the county’s records and privacy officer. Changes to fees and operations affect individuals who use those services as well as the office’s ability to cover election and staffing costs.

Major figures and service volumes McKenzie gave to the committee included 14 full‑time and three part‑time staff in the Clerk’s Office; 4,398 passport applications processed since Jan. 1; 1,663 marriage licenses issued; more than 50,000 registration updates; and just over 1,000 public records requests processed online. He said the office’s total operations budget is about $2.9 million and that the elections budget line is roughly $700,000.

McKenzie reported several one‑time and reimbursed amounts that reduced net costs in 2025: about $3,500 returned from the state toward a security upgrade in the Clerk’s Office, a state reimbursement of $62,250 toward iPad and equipment replacement at polling locations, and almost $48,000 from the state to support ongoing election equipment maintenance. He summarized the total unanticipated revenues for 2025 as $113,693.91.

On election operations, McKenzie said a recent vendor procurement cut per‑ballot costs from $0.79 to $0.63 — a roughly 20% reduction that he estimated saves about $30,000–$40,000 per election, or roughly $80,000 annually. He said the office also kept some existing hardware and refurbished cases to reduce replacement costs, producing a $65,000 underrun on a $150,000 iPad replacement project, and that part of that work was offset by the state reimbursement.

Personnel and other budget drivers: McKenzie said the personnel budget provided by HR shows an 11.49% increase tied to compensation adjustments and insurance costs. He described temporary election workers as a major operating variable because 2026 will include larger elections and petition processing under a five‑year contract with the state (the office expects to return later with a budget change if state revenue offsets are realized).

Operational savings and systems work: McKenzie described a 7% reduction in operations spending after identifying lower historical usage in some accounts and negotiating lower vendor costs. He also detailed non‑budget initiatives: a new agenda management system that replaced Probox, which McKenzie said reduced annual costs by $9,000 and expanded public searchability of minutes and documents; a candidate portal intended to consolidate declarations of candidacy, candidate bios, financial reporting and conflict‑of‑interest filings (planned for rollout next year, possibly in phases); and a countywide policy codification project nearly complete with work from an intern and cooperation among attorneys, HR, the controller’s office and IS.

Data privacy and training: following adoption of a county ordinance establishing a data privacy program, McKenzie said the Clerk’s Office hired a data privacy administrator, formed a privacy committee, appointed departmental privacy representatives and rolled out annual training that reached 96% completion as of the presentation. McKenzie quoted Lana Taylor, identified in the presentation as the state data privacy ombudsman: “Davis County is a model for other counties,” and he used that as evidence of program progress. He said the county’s privacy maturity score had risen from the 2.1–3.1 range noted in earlier materials to 3.8 on a five‑point scale.

Committee discussion touched on practical questions about the marriage‑ceremony fee and venue options. McKenzie said the county is required to provide a method for couples to be married, but that his office’s in‑office ceremonies are basic, typically take about five minutes, and that many couples prefer to arrange their own officiant or an off‑site ceremony. He said an added administrative assistant position was funded while the office offset costs by converting one full‑time position to a part‑time role, producing an estimated $49,000 in savings from that personnel change.

McKenzie summarized the bottom line by saying that, excluding variable municipal election revenue, the office projects about a 20% increase in its base revenues from fee changes and other adjustments and that the net budgetary impact after those revenues is approximately a 1.75% increase in the total Clerk’s Office budget for next year. He closed by answering committee questions and outlining next steps for the candidate portal, policy codification and continued maturation of the county data privacy program.

No formal committee action or vote on the presented items was recorded in the transcript of this session.