Davis County budget committee lays out scenarios that could require large property‑tax increases to plug a $12M gap

Scott Park, Davis County controller, told the budget committee on Oct. 27 that the draft tentative budget he circulated is “missing 1 number, which is the tax increase revenue line,” and that as presented it would be “short of $13,000,000 in our general fund.”

The committee spent most of the meeting weighing how to close that gap. Park presented scenarios that range from funding all services — which staff estimated would require roughly $12 million in new revenue under current assumptions — to staged or smaller increases paired with program and hiring cuts. Options discussed included a single large tax increase (presented in one scenario as roughly 28–30% countywide for the county piece), a two‑year split (for example 15% in 2026 and 10% in 2027), or smaller increases (10–15%) combined with using portions of the county fund balance and targeted cuts.

Park told commissioners the draft book has been tightened for payroll and other line items and that savings from historically unspent appropriations would modestly reduce the gap. “Using those updated numbers… the tax increase needed if we were to fund all the services without any additional cuts to services would be $12,000,000,” he said.

Commissioners focused on the tradeoffs. One commissioner argued that a tranche approach (a smaller increase now with a follow‑on increase next year) could be easier to justify politically and would give the controller more time to refine projections. Others warned that repeated increases are difficult for residents to accept and urged clear public communication explaining that the county’s share is a portion of an overall property‑tax bill.

Public‑safety staffing and attorneys were central to the debate. Some commissioners said they would resist cutting attorney positions or public‑safety staff because those roles are critical to community safety; others noted many positions were initially funded with one‑time federal grants and must be evaluated for long‑term affordability. Commissioners also discussed limiting or phasing hiring (holding some positions unfunded and filling them only when attrition creates savings).

Park outlined other levers under consideration: reclassifying some capital projects as deferrable, reallocating $1.8 million in Western Sports Park capital to operations in a short‑term scenario, reducing or pausing COLA/merit increases, and applying inmate‑services or opioid‑settlement funds for specific programs where legally permitted. He said he will publish tentative budget materials with scenario descriptions, and that open houses will start next week to gather public input.

The committee did not adopt a final revenue number at the meeting; Park said he would include scenarios in the tentative budget package if commissioners do not give a clear revenue direction by the internal Wednesday deadline for assembling the tentative budget book. The tentative budget must be published by statute before the next commission meeting.

Next steps: Park will distribute the revised tentative budget with scenarios and the commissioners will hold public open houses and further internal deliberations before setting the final proposal.