Summit County weighs property-tax hikes, new tourism sales tax and fee changes to close 2025 gap

Matt Lehi, Summit County’s finance staff, told the council on May 1 that staff had identified four broad ways to close a potential revenue gap for fiscal 2025: do nothing and cut services, raise property taxes through the truth-in-taxation process, adopt one or more sales taxes that target tourism impacts, or make targeted fee changes and other adjustments.

Lehi said the county balanced the 2024 budget using fund balance and is projecting a substantially larger budget in 2025. “I could easily foresee our budget for 2025 being in excess of $90,000,000,” he told the council, citing inflation, additional mandated services and growing operating costs. He said a no-action route would require about $10 million in cuts and “would not be able to provide the same level of service” to residents and visitors.

On property tax, Lehi reminded council members that the county has not increased its general‑fund or municipal‑services property taxes since 2017 and that any increase requires a truth‑in‑taxation public process. He said the county’s taxable value has grown rapidly, which gives “some room” to modestly raise rates without exceeding voter‑authorized limits, but that the level of any increase remains a policy choice.

Lehi described a recently changed state allowance for a rural‑hospital sales tax, which can be used up to 1% on certain taxable sales and — depending on qualifying geography and allowable uses — to fund emergency medical services, solid‑waste disposal, search and rescue, law enforcement, fire protection and avalanche forecasting. He estimated a back‑of‑the‑envelope tourism impact for the county of roughly $11.8 million and said “we would need a sales tax of about 0.4% in order to generate that $11,800,000.” He told the council those revenues could be used to move expenses for search and rescue, the landfill and law enforcement off the general fund and thus free general fund dollars for other services.

Council members pressed staff for more analysis on who would pay a sales tax (visitors versus residents), how long a sales‑tax option might delay a property‑tax increase and what would happen if a ballot question failed. Lehi cited prior county and third‑party analyses showing roughly half of sales‑tax revenue is paid by nonresidents and estimated that the county could delay a truth‑in‑taxation action for “another 3 to 4 years” if it stayed status quo and no unexpected demands arose.

Several council members urged a mixed approach: tighten departmental spending and pursue a rural‑hospital sales tax to capture visitor impact while preparing for truth‑in‑taxation as a contingency. Council direction to staff was to analyze municipal versus general fund needs, refine revenue estimates for each option, and return with timing and messaging recommendations so the county could meet the legal deadlines for placing questions on the ballot if it chose that route.

The council did not take a formal vote on a single revenue path at the meeting; staff were asked to produce additional financial scenarios and public‑outreach plans within weeks.