Daggett County Commission debates 2024-25 budget details, pauses to allow staff revisions

Speaker 1 (Unidentified Speaker) said the commission did not intend to “step on any toes” but stressed that the budget must be passed before the end of the month and that timing (today versus Dec. 31) remained debatable. "We're not trying to step on toes. We're but but we do need to pass the budget," Speaker 1 said.

Why it matters: Commissioners discussed which expenditures belong in which fiscal year and whether tourism-related revenues (TRT) and one-time funds should pay for purchases now under consideration. Those choices affect the county's fund balance and could require using general funds for future purchases if TRT monies are committed and later reimbursed.

The discussion focused on a mix of near-term purchases and larger policy choices. Speaker 2 (Unidentified Speaker) told the group the tourism/marketing program was "still in a state of confusion" and listed likely equipment needs: a camera, possibly a small drone, and a new computer with software licensing for flyer and newsletter production. Speaker 2 said staff may need Adobe licensing or comparable software and that those costs could be significant.

Separately, Speaker 4 asked whether an approximately $84,000 cost for the Steinger Curve project was booked in the 2024 or 2025 budget. Speaker 1 said the amount was currently included in 2024 and cited a $130,000 figure for the line. Speaker 5 reported a $155,000 figure covering items he had identified, including a sheriff's vehicle lease that had not yet been completed.

Commissioners also reviewed tourism-related tax planning. Speaker 5 said the draft budget set $680,000 for TRT spending and that the full amount was unlikely to be used for operating costs. The group discussed anticipated annual tax revenues with figures ranging in the discussion from roughly $170,000 to $180,000 (one participant corrected an earlier number), and noted last year’s TRT intake of about $274,000.

Land and facility options came up as part of the choices about capital and operating needs. Speaker 3 proposed that if the county could demonstrate value, it might be possible to trade property for Dutch John parcels; participants disagreed about relative value and noted some parcels may have restrictions. Speaker 2 asked whether the parcel fell in Brownsville and whether there were oil-related issues on parts of the property; participants referenced earlier remarks from "Carrie" about potential oil problems on corner parcels.

Speakers also discussed selling county-owned parcels ("sell the tail") or the jail parcel to free funds and the need to build a sheriff's office elsewhere if the current building were sold. No formal decisions on property sales or trades were made during the discussion.

On process, Speaker 1 said staff (including Carrie) should be given time to make adjustments and that the group had until the end of the month to act. Speaker 4 said he was comfortable advancing the 2024 adjustments if staff agreed; Speaker 3 emphasized the limited latitude after passage and noted calendar constraints (off the afternoon before Christmas and a noon deadline Dec. 24), while pointing out an alternate meeting option on Dec. 31.

Speaker 5 outlined the remaining edits needed for the 2025 budget, including salary amount changes and decisions on whether to apply 3% or 5% increases; staff names referenced for form adjustments included Trevor and others. No vote on budget adoption occurred in the transcript.

The commission agreed to recess for lunch to allow staff time to make the adjustments and to reconvene in one hour. Speaker 3 moved to recess until 03:00 p.m.; the group accepted the recess.

Next steps: Staff will apply the enumerated edits (salary adjustments and other items flagged by Speaker 5) and return with a revised draft when the commission reconvenes at 3:00 p.m. The commission did not take any formal vote on budget adoption during the portion of the meeting in this transcript.