Davis County budget committee weighs tax options, orders department "stress test" amid $5 million shortfall

Davis County Budget Committee members on May 29 reviewed options to close a projected shortfall after a December judgment in the Heather Miller case reduced the county fund balance by about $5 million as part of a $10 million judgment. Committee members discussed a possible judgment levy under the county's truth‑in‑taxation process, tapping opioid settlement funds, internal spending reductions and a proposed 6% property‑tax increase that the staff estimated could generate roughly $2.5 million.

The committee said the judgment levy is an option but not a long‑term fix. County staff reported the levy would have to follow the normal truth‑in‑taxation timeline, and attorneys are working through the timing and legal details. Staff and commissioners emphasized that using a judgment levy or a tax increase would need outreach explaining why any one‑time increase is requested.

Committee members asked departments and elected offices to run a “stress test” scenario based on a budget model the staff will present at the June administrative officers meeting. Under the scenario discussed, the county would assume a 6% revenue increase from property tax (about $2.5 million) and set aside a one‑time appropriation balance (discussed figures ranged from $800,000 to $1.5 million). Department heads were asked to identify how they would reduce spending under that assumption and to present plans at an all‑day budget meeting tentatively scheduled for late June.

Why it matters: the committee’s central task is to balance services and public safety with limited revenues. Members repeatedly raised public‑safety consequences if staffing and program cuts become deep, and they asked departments to prioritize core services when proposing reductions.

Key budget details and constraints

- Heather Miller judgment: committee discussion recorded that a $10 million judgment will reduce the county’s fund balance by about $5 million (the speaker stated $5 million coming from a third party referred to as USIP and $5 million from the county fund balance). Committee staff said the judgment levy could be handled through truth‑in‑taxation but is not necessarily required in a single year and could be spread out depending on legal advice.

- Proposed tax scenario: staff modeled a 6% property‑tax increase that was shown to produce approximately $2.5 million; commissioners and staff discussed using that figure as the baseline for department stress tests. Commissioners expressed a preference that any tax increase be modest and, if adopted, designed to last multiple years rather than recur annually.

- Opioid settlement funds: staff reported the county’s opioid fund balance is roughly $5 million by year‑end under current projections. A prior journal entry that transferred $600,000 to the county’s jail medical‑assisted‑treatment program was reversed because staff concluded the transfer may not be lawful; that reversal leaves those dollars unavailable for general budgeting unless formally authorized.

- One‑time/annual appropriations: commissioners discussed setting aside an annual appropriation or “one‑time” fund to smooth budget pressures. Figures discussed ranged from $800,000 up to $1.5 million for one‑time needs; no final dollar was adopted at the meeting.

- Department allocations and internal savings: commissioners reviewed department efforts to find efficiencies. The county IT director was cited as having realized about $270,000 in annual savings via organizational changes. Several elected offices and departments reported making or planning operational changes; commissioners asked that leaders show the effect of those changes in their stress‑test presentations.

Public safety and staffing pressures

Committee members flagged staffing and overtime in the Sheriff’s Office as a major cost driver. Participants noted the jail has substantial overtime expense (one speaker characterized the figure as roughly $1.5 million in overtime) and that vacancies in sworn positions increase overtime costs. Commissioners directed staff to discuss staffing, vacancy levels and overtime patterns with the sheriff’s office as part of the stress test and to consider whether some overtime cost could be reduced by funded positions rather than continual overtime.

Programs and contracts under scrutiny

Members also examined small contributions and partner programs as potential cuts. The meeting noted a $5,000 contribution to a county horse show and smaller contributions toward equine‑assisted therapeutic services; at least one commissioner questioned whether such grants are the best use of limited taxpayer dollars when the county faces a broader shortfall. Commissioners asked staff to compile allocations and small grants that departments consider nonessential so they can be evaluated alongside larger county priorities.

Revenue trends and other funds

Staff presented recent sales‑tax and tourism (TRT) revenue trends. Sales tax showed modest year‑to‑date growth; tourism and restaurant receipts were mixed. Short‑term rental revenue had grown in the period cited and partly offset weaker hotel receipts. Commissioners cautioned that favorable short‑term variances do not eliminate the structural gap shown in the staff projection.

Committee action and next steps

The committee unanimously approved minutes from the April 14, 2025 meeting (the mover and seconder were not specified in the discussion). Beyond that formal approval, the committee gave direction rather than taking final votes: staff will present a stress‑test model at the June 3–4 administrative officers meeting, department heads were asked to return with reduction proposals under the 6% revenue scenario, and the committee planned an all‑day director/elected‑official presentation session in late June (final date to be confirmed in follow‑up correspondence).

The committee recorded other administrative follow‑ups: staff will review allocations that centralize costs (information systems, facilities and HR), provide clearer accounting of election costs and refine the projections now that the most recent sales‑tax receipts have been posted. Commissioners said public outreach around any truth‑in‑taxation proposal would be essential if a levy or tax increase is pursued.

The budget committee will reconvene as scheduled; staff said they will circulate precise dates and the stress‑test template to department leaders in the next several days. The committee did not adopt a final tax or levy at the May 29 meeting.