Davis County budget committee sees lower 2025 opening balance, debates department-level budgeting approach

At its Jan. 13 monthly meeting, the Davis County Budget Committee heard that the county’s 2025 opening general‑fund balance is now projected at about $37,500,000 — roughly $4.2 million lower than the December estimate of $41.7 million — and discussed a new budgeting approach that would allocate operating funds to departments based on recent actual spending.

The committee’s discussion focused on two immediate pressures: the $5,000,000 payment described in the meeting as the Heather Miller settlement and slower or uncertain revenue streams (including final state distributions and sales tax receipts). The committee noted the county is “on the descent,” a phrase used during the meeting to describe the trajectory toward lower fund balances and tighter borrowing conditions if corrective steps are not taken.

Committee members argued the current process — where departments submit requests in July and the county later trims the aggregate gap — encourages large requests and ad hoc cuts. The principal alternative proposed was a department‑level allocation model that would:

- Use a recent multi‑year actuals baseline (committee discussion centered on a three‑year rolling average) rather than primarily on requests; - Dedicate a small portion of revenues (committee discussion used a working example of 5%) for one‑time, rotational, or capital items and allocate the remainder across departments by historical shares; - Require department heads to run their operations within the dollar amount allocated (the speaker called this being the “captain of your own ship”); - Bring budgeting work earlier in the cycle (June/July), so departments know a near‑final revenue baseline before submitting detailed plans; and - Create clearer guardrails for personnel changes so departments cannot reallocate unrestricted dollars to new ongoing positions without committee review.

“How do we land the plane?” the primary speaker asked, summarizing the approach as a way to manage the county’s downward trend while reducing surprise requests during the budget cycle. The committee discussed several implementation details that staff will test: whether a three‑year rolling average is the appropriate baseline versus a longer lookback; how to separate personnel and operations for turnback calculations; and how to treat departments whose revenues fluctuate with the market (for example, the recorder/assessor offices tied to real‑estate activity).

Members also discussed fund‑balance thresholds and borrowing costs. Committee staff said the county does not want the fund balance to drop below $25,000,000; the group noted that dipping below that level would make bonded borrowing more expensive. As one member put it, removing budget discipline “just pushes the problem” and can force either a service reduction or a tax increase.

Next steps: staff and the controller’s office will model the proposed approach using historical actuals (participants suggested testing three‑ and four‑year averages), report back with revised projections at the February meeting, and bring examples showing how departmental allocations, the 5% one‑time reserve, and any capital transfers would work in practice. No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the Jan. 13 meeting; the item remains for further staff modeling and committee consideration.

The committee’s comments and modeling work are intended to clarify alternatives before any discussion of a tax increase or formal changes to the county’s budget rules.