The controversial Salt Lake County budget passed last year provided plenty of fodder for contentious debate.
It was no different Tuesday as members of the Salt Lake County Council met to review the previously adopted 2001 budget. It was the first time the council has put the budget under such intense scrutiny.
The nine members of the council met early Tuesday during a two-hour session that could have been called Budget 101. In the presentation, county number-crunchers walked the elected body through many of the uglier portions of the budget.
In one of its parting acts, the council's predecessor, the Salt Lake County Commission, stung all county residents with a $7.3 million tax increase in December, citing a ballooning jail budget and declining revenues as the culprits. Residents of unincorporated areas in the county were hit with additional tax increases.
County Council members have indicated they are not opposed to reopening that budget and looking for new ways to reduce spending, therefore easing the tax hit.
However, Tuesday's lengthy preliminary discussion already was punctuated with vastly opposing philosophies on the part of the council. Council member Randy Horiuchi, while not defending the tax hike, said it was important to put the increases into perspective. Compared to anticipated utility increases looming for consumers, the increases implemented by Salt Lake County were not extraordinary, he said.
But council member Steve Harmsen shot back that the county's persistent path of overspending has to stop.
"We are on top of a wave that is starting to collapse all over the country in terms of rising costs, tax increases and utility increases," he said. "We have a responsibility to resist that wave. You get to the point where you have to say enough is enough."
The presentation on Salt Lake County's fiscal health was interrupted by the vigorous debate on spending practices. For some, it came to a question of whether money should be spent on certain projects and, if so, how much.
Council member Jim Bradley pointed out that many of the big-money projects the county has embarked on in the past several years have been aimed at improving the quality of life for county residents.
"Do we need a Capitol Theatre? Do we need a Salt Palace? People may look at these as superfluous. Are these residents better off because we have made these choices, even if they have to pay" in the form of tax increases?
Finally, council member Joe Hatch called for the discussion to cease so the presentation could continue. "We need to get through this presentation and crystallize the issues. I know we are going to have a wonderful debate."
The key component of the presentation focused on a list of 10 budget-reduction strategies County Council members may wish to implement if they decide to revisit the recently adopted budget.
Jim Wightman, director of the county's audit division, detailed any number of strategies that could result in spending cuts. Wightman and fellow county finance specialists said they chose not to make specific recommendations for spending reductions but instead wanted to offer general strategies. Among those discussed were across-the-board cuts, moratoriums on capital projects and reducing or eliminating programs. Another strategy they said had been highly successful in Phoenix was requiring all division managers and department heads to automatically offer 10 percent in budget cuts every year.
In the end, the council directed the county auditor to come up with a proposed budgeting strategy that prioritizes various county programs and services.
E-mail: amyjoi@desnews.com