Controller proposes tighter budget‑amendment rules, central IT fund and warns of tax‑notice deadlines

Davis County's new controller used the Aug. 11 budget committee meeting to propose clarifications to the county's budget‑amendment policy, advance a plan to centralize IT hardware replacement, and flag calendar deadlines tied to a possible property‑tax increase.

Charice Bills, controller's office, reviewed five common categories of budget amendments and said routine transfers within a department could be handled administratively while capital transfers between projects should require explicit commissioner approval. Bills used a sheriff's office request to repurpose card‑reader savings toward a 30‑yard trash compactor as an example of a capital‑to‑capital transfer commissioners should review before the controller reassigns appropriations.

Procurement and pricing

Commissioners and staff discussed whether state contract pricing is always the best option and encouraged more competitive procurement. Bills said she would work with procurement staff to tighten oversight. Several commissioners said they want visibility into capital reassignments before funds are repurposed.

IT internal service fund and network upgrade

Jeff Hassett, information systems director, proposed consolidating computer and network replacement into an IT internal‑service fund that charges departments an annual allocation rather than leaving replacement purchases to each department's operating budget. Hassett said that approach smooths large multi‑year replacement cycles (for example four‑year desktop/laptop refresh cycles) and improves bargaining power for bulk procurement. He proposed using about $200,000 of existing IT fund balance to start a countywide network upgrade and said the fund balance had been roughly $1.4 million before an earlier $800,000 reallocation; that left approximately $600,000 available to draw from for initial projects.

Bills noted that using internal fund balance for one‑time capital (the network upgrade) would require a public hearing and a formal resolution; the controller's office will prepare that for the commissioners if they direct staff to proceed.

Truth‑in‑taxation deadlines and fiscal structural issues

Bills reminded commissioners that calendar‑year entities must notify the treasurer in early September and the tax commission by Oct. 1 if the county intends to hold a truth‑in‑taxation hearing. She gave an example to show scale: “A 6% tax increase generates 2 and a half million dollars. A 7% tax increase generates about $3,000,000,” Bills said, and noted those notifications must be made before the county completes its budget hearings.

The controller also raised longer‑term fiscal issues such as unfunded post‑employment benefits (OPEB). Bills said the county carries a multi‑million‑dollar liability on the books and recommended examining options such as a termination payout pool or phased funding to smooth the budgetary impact of large termination and post‑employment payments.

Process and scheduling

Staff proposed compressing and reordering budget‑hearing schedules so commissioners hear all department requests before making real‑time trade‑off decisions. The controller offered tools to let commissioners model forward‑looking fund‑balance scenarios while ranking department requests. Commissioners broadly supported the idea of shorter, more focused hearings and tasked staff to work with their offices on scheduling.

Next steps

The controller will draft a proposed tweak to the budget amendment policy requiring commissioner approval for transfers between capital projects, prepare a public‑hearing packet if commissioners want to use internal IT fund balance for the network upgrade, and follow up with draft scenarios for truth‑in‑taxation timing and OPEB/termination‑pool options for the next work session.