Davis County clerk outlines 2025 budget proposal, cites higher election revenue and reduced operating costs

The Davis County Clerk’s Office presented its proposed 2025 budget to the County Budget Committee in October 2024, reporting strong service volumes in 2024 and projecting revenue gains tied to election contracts and state security funding.

The clerk’s office presenter told the committee that, through Sept. 20, the office had processed 3,935 passports, more than 1,600 marriage licenses and nearly 57,000 voter‑registration updates; the office also handled 310,532 petition signatures earlier in the year and converted over 72,000 documents to microfilm. “We processed 3,935 passports,” the presenter said, and described the volume as a “significant number.”

Why it matters: Election-related work is a major revenue driver for the office. The presenter said election revenues are about 57% above the adopted budget for 2024, citing state funding that supported security enhancements and funds tied to signature verification. The office plans to use leftover federal/state election security funds (described in the presentation as roughly $59,000 in HAVA funds) to cover an estimated up to $10,000 of additional front‑office improvements.

Key budget changes and assumptions: The presenter outlined several planned shifts for 2025. With only two elections scheduled instead of three, the office expects a material reduction in temporary election-worker costs and a roughly $310,000 decrease in election expenses. Overall projections presented were: revenues up about 10%, personnel expenses down about 1%, and operating expenses down about 23%. Capital spending was described as set to fall sharply because no capital projects are planned for 2025.

The committee discussed the effect of countywide ballot measures on revenue. A committee member noted that if the county places a countywide issue on the ballot, the county would pick up about 50% of related election costs and that could reduce the increase in net revenue tied to contracted election work. When asked whether a measure such as a fluoride question could appear on a primary ballot, the presenter said such measures are typically restricted from primaries and would appear on a general/November election.

Operations and services: The presenter highlighted operational improvements: the office added one permanent part‑time front‑office staffer (bringing front‑office FTE to seven), implemented a revised schedule described in the transcript as “9 5 fours” to expand appointment availability without increasing costs, introduced two online payment options for records and marriage-license fees, and upgraded passport‑photo equipment that reduced supply costs.

Security and equipment: A security enhancement to the election observation area completed in early 2024 finished about $50,000 under budget, the presenter said. An RFP for a ballot veil opener also came in about $5,000 under earlier estimates. The presenter also noted a required camera installation at the collection center tied to a state statutory requirement and a requested retention of an $8,250 annual maintenance line for a records machine (the transcript records several spellings: 'Avasar', 'Agasar', and a spelled‑out variant 'A g g I s a r').

Accuracy and oversight: The presenter reported an in‑depth review of the voter‑registration database that was publicly presented and returned a 99.98% accuracy rate. Committee members praised the records‑management work and the professionalism of clerk’s office staff, and one member referenced the office’s participation in statewide tabletop security exercises.

What’s next: The presentation closed with the presenter inviting additional questions and discussion. The committee did not take a formal vote during the presentation; the presenter asked that the $8,250 maintenance line be retained in the final budget submission. The meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m.