County controller: tax growth won’t erase $11 million operating gap; proposes payroll termination pool and targeted cuts

Davis County Controller presented the county’s non‑departmental and special service area budgets at a Budget Committee meeting and warned that projected sales and property tax growth alone would not eliminate the county’s operating shortfall.

The controller said the county is projecting about $1.4 million in additional sales tax revenue assuming 3% growth and about $687,000 (2.1%) in increased property tax revenue but added, “Even if I'm completely wrong on the taxes and the property tax and the sales tax both double … we're still short of 11,000,000.” The controller added, “3% is optimistic. As an accountant, I am not an optimist. I try to be a realist. Right? I try to be conservative.”

Why it matters: The controller framed the projections to explain why the county cannot “grow” its way out of the current deficit without cutting services or finding one‑time revenue infusions. The presentation covered debt service, intergovernmental memberships, operating lines such as postage and motor vehicle transaction processing, subsidies (including 9‑1‑1), and a proposed termination pool to pre‑fund separation payouts.

Taxes and revenues The controller used a data‑driven estimate for property tax growth that drew on assessor permit counts and said the approach has been reasonably accurate in neighboring jurisdictions. Sales tax assumptions hinge largely on consumer and vehicle sales. The controller emphasized that even higher growth scenarios would not eliminate the current operating gap unless the county also froze compensation and benefits.

Debt service and major projects The controller reviewed existing debt service tied to previously approved bonds, including refundings of 2019 bonds and later issuances for courthouse and library financing. The Western Sports Park bond was described as a large, roughly $70 million project; the controller said its debt service is paid from tourism tax revenue collected on hotel stays, restaurants and short‑term vehicle leases, but cautioned that all county debt is ultimately secured by county sales tax and the general fund if pledged revenues are insufficient.

Memberships and smaller operating lines The controller listed annual dues and subscriptions: Wasatch Front Regional Council (about $87,000), Utah Association of Counties (UAC) (about $82,000), National Association of Counties (NACO) (about $6,000) and a Sam’s Club membership (about $300). The controller said travel and training costs are separate and vary by conference location.

Indigent burial, motor vehicle fees and postage The controller noted an indigent cremation contract with local mortuaries at about $600 per cremation and an annual estimate of roughly $13,000. Motor vehicle transaction processing fees from the State Tax Commission are expected to rise about 12.5% (about $60,000), the controller said, and postage cost increases have strained departmental budgets after a 7.4% increase in 2024. The controller recommended the county mail room begin tracking departmental postage usage to determine fair allocations rather than having all postage charged to non‑departmental general fund lines.

9‑1‑1 dispatch and subsidies The controller described a roughly $200,000 annual general fund subsidy to the county 9‑1‑1 operations and said the 9‑1‑1 operating fund held about $900,000 at the end of 2024. County participants and some cities have changed dispatch arrangements in recent years, shifting call volumes and revenue allocations. The controller and other participants discussed the mechanics of how dispatch revenues follow call volume over a three‑year averaging period and warned that call volume shifts to other dispatch centers (for example, cities moving to a neighboring city’s dispatch) will reduce county 9‑1‑1 revenues while county costs may not decline in the same proportion. The controller said the municipal services fund is “very, very, very healthy” and suggested the 9‑1‑1 subsidy might be more appropriately funded from that municipal services fund or from the unincorporated services fund rather than the general fund.

Termination pool proposal The controller proposed creating a termination pool to pre‑fund OPEB and separation payouts. The proposal would charge a premium of 1.5% on gross payroll for benefited employees (defined as employees working 20 hours per week or more) and place the funds in a separate pool managed by the controller’s office. The controller said the county might seed the pool with $1,000,000 from fleet interest earnings, start the ongoing premium at 1.5% and then adjust the premium after monitoring attrition savings and actual payouts. “We'd like to move forward with that,” the controller said, explaining the pool would be used to pay retirements, sick‑leave payouts and other termination liabilities instead of charging individual departments when those events occur.

Controller office budget trims and other proposals The controller said the office trimmed nonessential travel and training (removing about $7,700), proposed eliminating an external fraud hotline fee (about $3,000) in favor of an internally hosted form plus a link to the state auditor’s hotline, and recommended canceling a long‑running maintenance contract for a mail folding machine (controller noted the machine has an $8,000 replacement value and a small annual maintenance charge). The controller said bids for external professional services may increase substantially, citing Weber County’s recent bid results (a 35–40% increase) and warning the county could see materially higher costs when current contracts expire.

Next steps discussed Committee members asked for additional detail on which funds should carry subsidies (9‑1‑1 vs. municipal services vs. unincorporated service funds), asked staff to gather postage‑usage data, and requested updated numbers from the sheriff on staffing assigned to unincorporated areas. The controller said the termination pool would be set up as a separate fund and administered by the controller’s office with payroll staff responsible for charging the premium. No votes or formal actions were taken at the meeting; the controller moved to the next portion of the budget review for the commission.

Ending The controller closed the non‑departmental review after committee questions and indicated staff will return with additional detail on several items including 9‑1‑1 cost allocation, postage usage by department, and results of upcoming professional service procurements.