Davis County surveyor presents near‑bare‑bones budget; committee hears fee, equipment and consolidation questions

At a meeting of the Davis County Budget Committee, the county surveyor reviewed the surveyor office's 2025 spending plan and answered committee questions about fees, a specialized equipment replacement and a longstanding coordinate reference issue.

The surveyor told the committee the office's budget is "really small" and "about as bare bones as you can possibly get," pointing to limited non‑salary operating funds. The surveyor said the 2025 operating budget in the county system showed about $12,000 with roughly $2,600 budgeted for equipment; the office is asking for approximately $14,000 and an additional $1,500 in the current year. After internal adjustments, the office reported it was within about $600 of prior levels. Committee discussion earlier in the process asked staff to reduce the budget by roughly $7,000; the office said Louise Miller and staff together reduced requested spending by $9,554 from earlier figures.

Committee members pressed the surveyor about the office's fee schedule. The surveyor said the office had adjusted fees for 2025 to align more closely with neighboring counties that had kept fees at about $40 for several years. No formal fee vote was taken at the meeting; committee discussion was limited to whether the proposed fee levels were comparable with adjacent counties.

The surveyor described one near‑term capital need: a specialized survey tablet used in the field, which the presenter characterized as critical to operations because the office has only one working unit and would be unable to perform fieldwork if it failed. The presenter said the existing device was purchased around 2017'18 and that the office plans to keep the old unit as a backup. The meeting record does not specify a finalized purchase price for the replacement device.

Members asked whether there were plans to consolidate the surveyor's office with the county recorder. The surveyor said he had not heard any plans for consolidation and that, in his view, combining the offices tends to be less efficient in smaller counties. Committee members also asked about earlier statutory and technical changes involving map datums. The surveyor said Davis County previously used a local coordinate system and that for a time some counties used NAD 83; current practice requires documents that use the county's older system to show a relationship to NAD 83 on recorder filings.

No formal motions, votes or budget approvals were recorded in the transcript excerpt provided. Committee members offered praise for an ordinance the surveyor had recently submitted to the commission for approval earlier in the week.

The rest of the committee's questions focused on routine clarification: how "type sheets" (8.5 x 11 drawings that show monuments and local measurements) are used by surveyors, when staff expect retirements and succession planning, and common public misunderstandings about the surveyor's role in private boundary disputes. The surveyor told the committee that boundary disputes are legal matters and that the county surveyor does not decide ownership in private title disputes.

The presentation concluded without a recorded committee directive or final vote on the surveyor's budget or fee schedule; staff and county budget office attendees indicated the surveyor's requests were largely covered after internal reductions.