Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Davis County controller builds tentative budget around 29.9% revenue increase; commissioners asked to review requests

Davis County Budget Committee · October 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Controller Scott Park presented multi‑year fund forecasts on Oct. 13 and said he will build a tentative budget based on a 29.9% truth‑in‑taxation increase (about $12.5 million). He flagged the 9‑1‑1 fund as insolvent by 2026 and asked commissioners to review department 'additional requests.'

Scott Park, Davis County controller, presented multi‑year fund‑balance forecasts to the Davis County Budget Committee on Oct. 13 in Farmington and said he will build a tentative budget based on a 29.9% truth‑in‑taxation revenue increase (about $12.5 million). He asked commissioners to review department additional requests attached to the agenda and said he would circulate a draft budget for review before the Nov. 1 deadline.

Park front‑loaded the committee meeting with an overview of general‑fund pressures, saying costs are rising nearly twice as fast as revenue and that, absent new revenue or targeted cuts, the county will face difficult tradeoffs. “Here’s some of the things we’ve done,” Park said, noting the draft eliminates 17 positions in the 2025 budget and that he had denied discretionary requests where permitted. “I said no to everything I could say no to,” Park said, summarizing how he filtered department asks to keep the tentative budget as flat as possible.

Why this matters: Park said public safety and courts consume roughly two‑thirds of general‑fund spending, so any significant reductions would most likely affect those areas. He described a menu of options if commissioners choose a smaller revenue path than the controller’s 29.9% build: first reduce slough/one‑time wrap funding, then limit merit/cola increases, and as a last resort consider staff reductions.

Supporting details: Park reviewed individual fund outlooks in the model: the health fund and library were projected to remain solvent through his five‑year horizon if current proposals are adopted; the municipal services fund and several capital funds showed erosion over time if current project lists proceed. The controller noted the crime‑lab architecture design request (about $1,000,000) was denied because the county’s capital projects fund lacks money to build a facility now.

Public outreach and next steps: Park said the controller’s office will send commissioners a draft tentative budget (he planned to circulate a draft by Friday). He reviewed plans for three public open houses (evening sessions) and a temporary web 'ask a question' box, urging the public to use open houses for substantive feedback. Park also said commissioners can shift priorities in the model and that any changes will be shown in side‑by‑side scenarios to facilitate public conversations at the open houses.

The committee did not take a formal vote at the meeting; Park said he would proceed to build the tentative budget on the 29.9% scenario unless commissioners directed otherwise and would adjust numbers per commissioner feedback.