Davis County budget committee orders stress test amid $10 million judgment and projected shortfall

Davis County officials on May 29 pressed department heads to run a budget “stress test” in late June as the county grapples with a projected fiscal shortfall and the fallout from a recent legal judgment. The budget committee was told the Heather Miller settlement created about a $10,000,000 judgment, with roughly $5,000,000 drawn from the county’s fund balance.

Controller Curtis Koch told the committee he had circulated a flow chart on judgment levies and said a judgment levy is an available, short‑term option that would have to be processed through the county’s usual truth‑in‑taxation procedures and cleared with attorneys. Koch cautioned the measure would not be a long‑term remedy but could explain a one‑time tax increase to the public.

Why it matters: committee members said the county needs to show voters prudent belt‑tightening if it asks for new revenue. Commissioners repeatedly urged staff to identify cuts and efficiencies—especially in noncore programs—before pursuing a levy or other revenue changes.

During the meeting commissioners discussed a range of options they asked departments to model: limiting use of fund balance (examples discussed ranged from $1 million to $3 million), and a sample 6% property‑tax increase, which the controller estimated could yield about $2.5 million. Committee members emphasized a preference for smaller increases that last multiple years rather than repeated short increases.

The committee also reviewed other revenue and constraint issues. Koch reported updated sales‑tax receipts showed a modest year‑to‑date increase (~$150,000) and that tourism receipts (TRT) have softened in hotels but held up in restaurants and short‑term rentals. Separately, Koch said he reversed a prior $600,000 transfer tied to opioid settlement accounting; he said about $360,000 of the opioid funds now shown are directly tied to medically assisted treatment at the jail and may not be available to fill general‑fund gaps.

Commissioners raised programmatic priorities during the budget review. Members questioned small discretionary contributions—such as a $5,000 support line for a horse show and funding for equine‑assisted therapy—and debated whether those outlays are the best use of limited taxpayer dollars while the county faces sustained budget pressure.

Public‑safety costs were a focal point: commissioners and staff discussed large overtime expenditures in the sheriff’s office and jail operations and noted reported vacancies as a cause. Several members urged a deeper look at whether hiring additional deputies or other staffing changes could reduce overtime costs over time.

On next steps, the committee agreed to convene an all‑day departmental session in late June for director presentations. Departments and elected officials were asked to run the stress test and return with 10–20 minute presentations explaining what the proposed constrained budgets would mean for services and staffing. The controller said staff will refine the stress‑test model and circulate it in advance.

Votes at a glance: the committee approved the minutes from its April 14, 2025 meeting by unanimous voice vote.

The budget committee adjourned after confirming those next steps; staff were asked to continue legal review on the judgment levy option and to clarify restrictions on opioid settlement dollars before the late‑June departmental presentations.