Audit: Davis County faces a multi‑million dollar budget gap as commissioners consider cuts, loans and a tax increase

Curtis Koch, Davis County auditor, told the Budget Committee on Sept. 30 that the county is confronting a structural spending problem and a sizable gap between department requests and projected resources.

"You have a spending problem. Davis County has a spending problem," Koch said as he walked the committee through staff projections showing departments requested about $105 million for Fund 10 in 2025 while projections of receipts and transfers put available resources closer to $86–89 million.

The auditor and staff laid out how they produced the projections: departments’ partial‑year actuals were annualized, payroll was pro‑rated by completed pay periods and a 2 percent contingency was included. They warned that timing differences in payroll accounting and unanticipated department spending can materially change fund balances.

Why it matters: the gap means the county must either reduce requested spending, identify new revenue, or reallocate one‑time and restricted funds. Options discussed included cutting nonessential operations, using short‑term internal loans to smooth capital timing, and placing tax increases before voters for one‑time or ongoing needs.

Committee reaction and options Commissioners and staff debated options at length. One commissioner suggested the county must "learn to say no" on personnel requests; another advocated exploring temporary internal loans rather than bonding to avoid financing fees. Koch noted some flexibility exists with one‑time restricted funds but cautioned that many transportation and preservation revenues are legally restricted and cannot be repurposed without legislative change.

Koch also stressed transparency in presenting any tax proposal: he said the tentative budget message — due Nov. 1 — will formalize recommended cuts and revenue measures for the board to consider.

Budget mechanics and assumptions Staff described revenue assumptions that underpin the projections: a conservative 0.999% growth assumption for property taxes, 1.75% allowance for historical unanticipated "turn back" revenue and a roughly 8.2% medical premium scenario used for benefit cost projections. They highlighted how one‑time transfers in 2023 (for projects such as the Western Sports Park and animal care capital) had masked structural expense growth.

What’s next The committee approved a motion to accept the meeting minutes from Sept. 16 and will receive a tentative budget on Nov. 1 with formal recommendations staff said could include cuts to department requests, attrition savings, use of limited one‑time funds, and (if necessary) proposals for tax adjustments.

The auditor emphasized that while difficult choices lie ahead, the county can use a combination of spending discipline and carefully targeted revenue measures to "land the plane" and restore healthier fund balances.