Davis County budget office projects $6.8M gap; commissioners weigh tax, fee and staffing options

County staff told the Davis County Budget Committee on Dec. 3 that the draft 2026 general fund budget will show a roughly $6.8 million gap between revenues and planned spending. The controller recommended presenting the final budget with a $6.9 million use of fund balance at the public hearing and then returning to work sessions in January to develop longer‑term fixes.

Why it matters: committee materials show revenues with the tax increase at about $98.4 million against spending of roughly $105 million, producing a $6.8 million shortfall and about $6.4 million of ongoing pressure once one‑time items are excluded. Staff warned that failing to budget potential known expenses (for example, inmate pharmacy overruns) could expose the county to state reporting obligations or budget compliance risks.

Options discussed included a mix of temporary and structural moves. Staff outlined revenue options such as renegotiating or phasing increases to law‑enforcement contract fees charged to three contract cities (West Point, South Weber and Fruit Heights), which the controller estimated could yield roughly $800,000 if per‑resident charges were raised from the current low level toward $100 per resident. Commissioners asked staff to coordinate with the sheriff on timing and city impacts before proposing a change.

On the spending side, commissioners and staff examined several approaches: drawing additional dollars from the general‑fund balance for the short term; deferring certain capital deposits (staff cautioned that capital deferral is a short‑term fix that increases long‑term risk); implementing surgical hiring freezes or voluntary early‑retirement incentives; and targeted reductions in headcount. Staff presented arithmetic showing that saving roughly $2.8 million equates to about 21 full‑time equivalents and that eliminating the entire shortfall via payroll cuts would equal roughly 35 FTEs, with one‑time separation costs that reduce but do not eliminate long‑term savings immediately.

Staff also emphasized tradeoffs for public safety and mandated services. The county attorney’s office outlined a contingency plan that could survive a five‑person cut by declining prosecution of about 1,600 misdemeanor cases now handled for contract cities, but warned that shifting those cases would raise public‑safety and workload concerns for cities that do not routinely staff that work.

The controller said he is professionally comfortable being off by $2 million while staff develops a surgical plan, but asked for direction on what to present at the public hearing. Commissioners directed staff to: (1) present the final budget showing the draw from fund balance; (2) begin discussions with the sheriff and affected cities about contract‑fee options; and (3) research hiring‑freeze and targeted reduction scenarios to bring back in January for further action.

What happens next: the budget office will post the final budget and present it at the scheduled public hearing; staff will report back to the committee with more detailed options and financial projections in January. The committee did not take a formal vote on cuts at the Dec. 3 meeting.

Representative quotes from the meeting (paraphrased to match the transcript): “Our revenues with the tax increase will be 98.4 million and our spending currently is about 105 million, which means we are short by $6.8 million,” staff told commissioners. A commissioner summarized revenue options: raising contract fees to recover a larger share of law‑enforcement costs from the three cities "could generate another $800,000," but would require time and negotiation.

Ending note: staff emphasized that some options are one‑time solutions and that the committee should plan structural changes to avoid repeating the same deficit in future years.