Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget presenter disputes state auditor's $2 million restriction on —assessing and collecting— funds
Summary
At the Davis County Budget Committee, the presenter challenged the State Auditor's calculation that roughly $2 million should be restricted for assessing-and-collecting activities, outlining the county's allocation methodology and a historical shortfall dating to 2013.
Unidentified Speaker 1, presenting the county's budget package, told the committee that the State Auditor's office extracted data from the county transparency site and concluded the county should have about $2,000,000 restricted for assessing and collecting. "They said, you guys should have $2,000,000...that should be restricted that you can't use for anything but assessing and collecting," Speaker 1 said, and added he disagreed with the auditor's approach.
Speaker 1 walked the committee through what the county counts as assessing and collecting costs: surveyor work and property boundaries, recording deeds, assessor activities, auditor tax-administration work, the treasurer's collection and distribution role, attorneys supporting board of equalization hearings and related work, and information systems support. He said the county adjusted the attorney allocation from the auditor's suggested cap ("5% or $50,000") to a 3.27% share of the total attorney budget, yielding what Speaker 1 described as a defensible figure of about $325,000 for assessing-and-collecting work.
Speaker 1 also summarized the county's historical analysis, saying the county has been "upside down $7,500,000" on general property-tax support for assessing and collecting since 2013. He said another $3,000,000 in core tax development costs are not included in the core $7,000,000 figure, which brings the apparent cumulative shortfall closer to $10.5 million.
The presenter emphasized the limits of the prior years'spike in recording fees and refinances, which temporarily improved the fund position: "We were knocking it out of the park...Those days are gone," Speaker 1 said, while noting that future refinancing could provide limited relief for recording-fee revenue.
Committee members asked clarifying questions during the review; Speaker 2 noted letters from recent property buyers and asked about the timing of refinancing-related revenue returning. The presenter said the county will continue to validate and defend its allocation methodology to the State Auditor's office and that staff will refine the spreadsheet inputs before finalizing numbers.
The committee did not take a formal vote on this accounting approach in the transcripted segments; Speaker 1 asked members to be prepared to explain the county's methodology to external reviewers if necessary.
