OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics 2005 Salt Lake County Government: Creating Synergy, Success, and Efficiency for the Next Ten Years Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon Introduction When it comes to Salt Lake County government, the majority of the county's 950,000+ residents hardly even know that they have a county mayor-much less that Salt Lake County's chief executive office was formerly occupied by three commissioners. Yet with a few reminders, citizens recall voting in favor of the change at the ballots in November 1998. Change at the top was never meant to affect services to residents. No survey or opinion poll ever taken at the local level showed discontent with county services. Still, for much of the past three decades there have been a series of efforts to change the face of local government in Salt Lake County. Most were unsuccessful. In the 1970s there was a failed attempt to consolidate Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County governments. There was a vote to incorporate the unincorporated area. It failed. There were more than a dozen reports and reviews prepared on local government in Salt Lake. They included a report on unification of Salt Lake Police and Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office (Unification Study 1978), and two reports to streamline and increase the efficiency of Salt Lake County government (Booz et al. 1977, 1979). While reports mainly called for functional consolidation, the reality became increased service segmentation as significant portions of the unincorporated area incorporated into cities. Some of the new cities decided to contract with the county for services (police, fire, snow removal). Others self-provided. Since the mid-1970s, the geopolitical map of the county has changed significantly. In the 1970s, West Valley City, Taylorsville, Holladay and Cottonwood Heights did not exist. Portions of Midvale, Salt Lake City, West Jordan and Riverton were unincorporated, as were urban areas in Midvale and the City of South Salt Lake. In fact, Salt Lake County provided city-type services to the largest single local population in Utah. Today, it still does. The evolutionary tale of county government includes creation of new cities, annexation of unincorporated areas and, finally, a successful general election vote to change the form of Salt Lake County government. Where Salt Lake County is today and how it got here is an interesting bit of history. History of County Government After several failed attempts to consolidate, incorporate or otherwise alter Salt Lake County government, commissioners took action to fully review the government. In 1983 it began a cooperative relationship with the Salt Lake Area Chamber of Commerce creating the Business/Government Alliance to study local government. In the spring of 1985, commissioners appointed four committees to examine County Operations, Management Procedures and Structures (COMPS). The committees studied the tax system, criminal justice system, administrative structure and the roles and revenues of Salt Lake County government. By October of 1985 the recommendations were presented and they were published in January 1986. Many of the recommendations became the backbone of the vote 10 years later to change the form of Salt Lake County government. The COMPS study determined that the three member commission, elected at-large was "unable, fairly and accurately, to represent the county..." ("County Operations Management Procedures and Structure [COMPS] Task Force Reports" 1985, 2). This nearly 20-year-old report, recommended changing the form of Salt Lake County government from the commission form of government to Executive/Council as "authorized by Utah Code Annotated (17-35-14). ("A Report on Recommended Action on the COMPS Task Force Reports" 1986, 7) Also included among the 17 major recommendations: • Eliminate redundant overhead costs ("A Report on Recommended Action" 1986, 5). • When the Legislature assigns a specific function to county government, it should provide sufficient funds to deliver the service or grant the county the ability to raise sufficient funds to insure service delivery ("A Report on Recommended Action" 1986, 1). 63 |