Davis County Public Works outlines flood, road and fleet needs; seeks match for mosquito-abatement project

Adam Wright, Public Works, told the Davis County Budget Committee that the department is seeking to roll several ongoing capital projects into next year’s budget, is requesting equipment replacements and is asking the committee to consider a change to how the county’s vehicle-maintenance shop is funded.

Wright said Public Works “manages flood control, roads, weeds, vehicle maintenance, trails” and that the division employs 27 full-time staff, maintains “78 pieces of equipment,” and oversees “27 jurisdictional channels totaling over 187 miles.” He told the committee the shop maintains “400 plus vehicles” and that crews have issued 17 flood-control permits so far this year and expect to issue over 40 by year-end.

The presentation emphasized flood-control, road and weed-management work as core safety and infrastructure functions. On flood control Wright said the department permits development within 100 feet of designated channels, cleans channels and culverts, dredges sediment basins and repairs erosion. He listed recent projects that included replacing a large culvert on Holmes Creek at 2050 East and receiving permits to enclose a portion of Holmes Creek near the mosquito-abatement property and to repair an erosion site on Case Creek near a Lake City trail.

Wright described several large state-led transportation projects that are affecting county infrastructure and workloads: UDOT’s I‑15 widening, UTA double-track work and the West Davis Corridor. He said those projects will “have major impacts on flood infrastructure throughout the county” and that Public Works is coordinating with cities and the state on mitigation and design work.

On roads, Wright reviewed recent surface work and planning: slurry sealing on 650 North and other local streets, maintenance of rural shoulders and roadside drainage, and crack-sealing that covered about a third of the county’s inventory this year. He said Public Works is working with West Point, Farmington and Syracuse on annexation-related road and drainage planning and noted the county sometimes rebuilds roads to city standards with the intent to transfer them to the city once annexation occurs.

Wright described the trails division as a newer unit with one full‑time employee that maintains “over 30 miles of trail” and performs mowing, weed control, graffiti removal, snow removal and asphalt maintenance. He also described a county-supported shooting‑range project that included a rebuilt parking lot, drainage fixes, raised berms, a leveled path and construction of a classroom used by the sheriff’s department for safety training.

On capital requests, Wright asked the committee to roll unfinished items into the 2026 budget, and outlined equipment needs: a replacement 3‑15 excavator, an additional dump truck, roller and trailer replacements in later years, and a larger excavator (referred to in the presentation as a “330 cat”) planned for 2030. He said the county was not requesting vehicles in the 2024 budget cycle but expected higher expenses next year in the roads account.

Wright told the committee the county received a permit for a project adjacent to the mosquito‑abatement property and noted, “A $180,000 is what they have in budget. We would like to match that,” referencing a cooperative agreement to split project costs with the mosquito‑abatement entity.

A substantial portion of the meeting focused on fleet and vehicle‑shop funding. One Budget Committee member asked whether the shop should operate as an internal service fund and bill departments for labor rather than continue to have the general fund subsidize shop labor. The member raised the policy trade-offs of allocations versus direct billing and said moving to an internal‑service billing model had improved efficiency in another county’s experience.

Wright and other participants described trade-offs: in‑house mechanics provide rapid response for priority county equipment (for example, sheriff and public‑works machines), which can reduce down time compared with sending large equipment to outside dealerships. The committee discussion noted potential short‑term resistance from departments that would see higher direct charges for services but said a move to billed labor could provide better cost transparency and stronger lifecycle planning for vehicles.

Committee members requested more detailed analysis before changing the funding model. The controller and other committee members asked staff to return with standard labor times, clearer replacement schedules, and the fiscal impact of moving parts of the shop to an internal service or enterprise model. The budget committee postponed the specific fleet‑funding decision and asked staff to bring updated numbers at an upcoming wrap‑up meeting.

The department flagged other near‑term needs and risks: several spillways identified in inspections with estimated repairs of about $200,000 each, price and permit uncertainty for construction, and continued operational impacts from large state transportation projects. Wright said Public Works will continue to partner with cities and agencies on cooperative projects and to prioritize safety‑related flood and road work.

The committee did not take any formal votes during the Public Works presentation and asked staff to return with refined cost estimates and an implementation plan for any change to the shop’s funding and billing practices.