Davis County budget committee hears Community and Economic Development budget overview

Kent Anderson, director of Community and Economic Development, briefed the Davis County Budget Committee on the department’s budget materials and priorities, summarizing economic development, planning, transportation, community services and tourism programs and requests.

Anderson said the office packaged its materials to be more decision‑maker friendly and asked that committee members hold questions until the end of his roughly 15‑minute presentation. “This is a new approach that Scott’s asked us to do this year,” Anderson said, adding that the department oversees roughly a dozen distinct funds.

The presentation outlined multiple dedicated funds and recent activity. Anderson said the county’s contribution to the Northern Utah Economic Alliance will return to $150,000 (matching a Weber County $150,000 contribution and a state match), and described the county’s role administering the Davis Loan Fund through the regional council of governments. He said the loan fund holds about $6,000,000 total, of which $5,400,000 is committed and $600,000 is on hand; in 2025 staff facilitated roughly $2,500,000 in loans and leveraged a state program (USBCI) that matched lending with about $6,000,000 in additional credit, with $2,000,000 of that expected to return to the county loan fund after repayments.

Planning and code updates: Anderson told the committee the county is funding a major general‑plan update and revisions to county code (Title 14 and 15), work he said had not been completed in more than 20 years. He noted the county plans to adopt updated international building code materials (online access and periodic updates) to meet state requirements.

Transportation funding: Anderson outlined three primary county transportation revenue sources and current balances. He said the corridor preservation fund (fund 26) — funded by a $10 motor‑vehicle registration fee — collects roughly $3,000,000 a year and holds about $23,000,000. He said UDOT has an estimated $20,000,000 to acquire land needed to finish the West Davis Corridor to the Weber County line, and the county expects about $12,000,000 of corridor preservation expenditures this year and $8,000,000 in 2026.

Anderson said the third‑quarter sales tax fund (fund 28) currently collects about $19,000,000 a year and shows $39,200,000 of uncommitted funds; he said roughly $29,000,000 in requests were submitted for the coming year and the county expects to fund about $20,000,000 of those. The Prop 1 sales tax fund (fund 22) collects about $3,800,000 a year and has roughly $23,000,000 uncommitted, he added; the unincorporated portion of Prop 1 holds about $700,000 and could be used for eligible projects in the unincorporated county, including a road serving the Animal Care campus.

Community services and grants: Anderson said community services funds (including CodeBlue, CDBG and SSBG) primarily mirror grant receipts and that the department’s requests for CodeBlue include personnel, operations and contract services; he said the county will leverage state and other resources rather than overspend those accounts.

Tourism, conference center and Western Sports Park: Anderson described tourism and events spending and revenue expectations. He said the Davis Conference Center, managed by Western States Lodging Management, has had annual revenue at or above $4,000,000 since February 2022. For the new Western Sports Park, Anderson said the department set an income goal of $1,740,000 and an economic‑impact goal of $50,000,000 for the coming year; the county also is developing a 10‑year capital maintenance plan. To build that reserve the county instituted an 8% capital reserve (8% of total sales), currently estimated at about $370,000 a year, with a goal of growing the account toward $3.5 million by 2030.

Anderson said tourism funds have limited flexibility because about 42% of tourism revenues are already committed to a WSB bond payment, a lease payment, the Agricultural Heritage Center and county allocations. He said the tourism fund’s limited available balance affects the amount of new commitments the county can make from that fund.

Discussion and commissioners’ questions: Committee members asked several policy and allocation questions. Commissioners asked whether corridor preservation dollars might be repurposed or made flexible for housing or land acquisition; Anderson and others said they have discussed flexibility with state partners and agreed that any change would require careful review. One commissioner asked whether some tourism expenditures (for example, community event sponsorships or local recreation facilities) should instead be funded from other county funds; Anderson and other staff described how portions of staff salaries are allocated across funds and said assignments vary by program.

Committee members also asked about Western Sports Park capacity and finance. Anderson estimated the park’s near‑term gross‑revenue capacity at about $3,000,000 if operations were pushed “to the gills,” but said the department expects venues such as the conference center and sports park to be “loss leaders” that deliver broader local sales‑tax and property‑tax benefits through visitor spending and new development. “We are going to spend less on concessions because we want to encourage folks to go to restaurants across the street,” Anderson said, describing a deliberate approach that prioritizes local economic impact over maximizing venue concession revenue.

No formal votes or binding decisions were recorded during the presentation; Anderson said staff will continue to refine requests, meet with municipal partners (including Layton City) and bring recommendations to the commission for funding decisions.

Ending: The presentation closed with committee members thanking staff and noting the importance of continuing conversations about fund flexibility, capital reserves and the long‑term operation of event and tourism assets. Anderson opened the floor to questions and the committee moved to other business.