Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Projection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Five‑year county projection shows deficits and shrinking fund balance; commissioners weigh cuts, fund balance use or tax increase
Summary
Controller staff presented a five‑year model showing the county’s fund balance declining under current projections. Officials outlined options — across‑the‑board cuts, use of fund balance, or a tax increase — and discussed timing, public engagement and political considerations.
Davis County finance staff presented a five‑year projection to the Budget Committee on April 14 that shows the county’s general fund trending toward a multi‑million dollar shortfall and falling reserve levels if current revenue and spending patterns continue.
A controller’s office representative described the projection as based on unaudited year‑end numbers, historic growth assumptions and adjusted expenditure forecasts. Staff projected the county’s unassigned fund balance to end 2025 at roughly $30 million under the model presented; absent revenue changes or spending reductions, the projection showed continued drawdown over the five‑year window.
Staff quantified the gap under current assumptions as roughly $6–7 million and described three broad responses: across‑the‑board spending cuts distributed to departments, using fund balance to smooth the shortfall, or a property tax increase. Commissioners and department directors discussed tradeoffs: using fund balance reduces near‑term pain for services but depletes reserves; cuts would require departments to reduce personnel or programs; a tax increase would raise recurring revenue but would require a unified public messaging strategy and outreach similar to the county’s prior 2016 tax measure.
Budget staff recommended setting aside $1 million as a contingency appropriated during the year and said staff would provide department‑by‑department work sessions with administrative officers and directors to develop balanced options. The committee discussed a potential targeted transfer (for example, a $2 million transfer to animal care was discussed as a placeholder), and staff noted that using fund balance to cover that transfer would reduce the cushion available for future years.
On the question of a tax increase, staff provided a rule‑of‑thumb estimate: raising roughly $6 million in property tax revenue would translate to approximately $47 per year on an average home in the county; staff also said that a 5.9 percent overall tax increase on county levies would roughly flatten the projection under the assumptions used in the model. Committee members emphasized that any tax proposal would require broad alignment among elected officials and an extensive public outreach process.
The Budget Committee did not adopt any of the policy options at the meeting; staff were directed to meet with administrative officers and return with department‑level scenarios and clearer choices ahead of the budget cycle.
Why it matters: The projection highlights a structural budget gap that will force either program reductions, use of reserves or new revenue if the county wants to maintain current services.
Next steps: Staff will convene director‑level sessions, refine the five‑year projection, and supply commissioners with scenarios that show the tradeoffs among cuts, fund balance use and potential tax increases.
