Police fee troubling

A quarter of the people who received the first bills to help fund Salt Lake County's contribution the new Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area did not pay them. Some even tossed them in the trash, not realizing the invoices were actual bills. Still others were confused by the California return address and elected not to pay.

Salt Lake County Councilman Jim Bradley says he believes the problems can be overcome once the public becomes accustomed to this new process. Here's hoping, because providing a reliable revenue stream to the Salt Lake Valley Law Enforcement Service Area is critical to the success of the fledgling Unified Police Department.

The initial response to these billings was troubling. A goodly share of the public in the unincorporated county obviously did not understand why it was receiving a stand-alone bill for law enforcement. This fee was instituted as a means to pay police fees. The county has suffered a reduction of sales tax revenues during the ongoing recession. Those taxes normally fund municipal services.

Perhaps more disturbing is that the billing has become a wedge issue for some police on the beat. Officers often encounter members of the public in contentious circumstances. In some instances, public ire over these assessments has compounded the challenges officers normally encounter while making traffic stops, responding to reports of domestic violence or conducting other police business. A bill to cover policing costs should be the last thing officers worry about in the course of their duties.

It is not beyond the pale that these bills are confusing for members of the public who are accustomed to paying fees for certain services such as water, sewer and garbage pickup. Most people understand if they don't pay their water bill, their service eventually will stop.

For obvious reasons, the UPD will serve the entire service area regardless whether Mr. Jones has paid his residential fee or if the neighborhood convenience store has not.

Yet the UPD needs revenue to pay its officers, maintain its fleet and provide other services. How is that supposed to happen when a full quarter of bill recipients haven't yet paid?

The County Council should reconsider this strategy for a number of reasons. If the billing system doesn't produce the anticipated revenue, the county will have to find some other means to pay its portion of the service district's budget. That may mean a property tax hike, which is what council members were trying to avoid.

More important, there should be a greater recognition of how the assessment of this fee makes the job of front-line police officers more difficult. Given the inherent risks of law enforcement, making things harder ought to be the last thing the County Council wants.