Corroon's veto is called into question

Political wrangling over a property tax veto issued last week by Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon continued Monday when a legal review cited issues with the document ratifying his decision.

The County Council's legal adviser, Karl Hendrickson, highlighted language in the mayor's veto message that he said "does not meet the ordinance requirements for a line item veto" and would likely "create an unjustifiable risk to Salt Lake County's property tax revenues."

Council Chairman Joe Hatch said Monday that the wording of the document would effectively eliminate the property tax levy, in toto, and undo millions in budget cuts made since the first of the year.

"I got an e-mail from Karl indicating that there was a real problem with this veto," Hatch said. "It vetoes everything … the tax rates, the $20 million in cuts we've made … it goes far beyond what the mayor intended."

Hatch said he and members of the council knew what the mayor meant to do — namely, veto a $5.3 million shift in outstanding county debt from sales tax to property tax — but the veto applied to everything contained in resolution 4287, which included much more than the debt-related tax increase.

Corroon said the veto document, and a requisite statement that accompanied it, made his intentions very clear and characterized the issues raised by the council's legal review as a "technical" matter.

"The council expressed confusion as to what I was trying to veto," Corroon said. "As far as I'm concerned, and from the opinion of our district attorney, our veto is valid."

Salt Lake County District Attorney Lohra Miller said her office vetted the document, found no issues with its format and discounted the concerns raised by the council.

"The review is not legally correct," Miller said. "The veto resolution, taken with the clarification, very clearly indicates that the mayor vetoed only the debt service levy."

Miller also said the entire matter could have been resolved through communication between the council's legal staff and her office, but none was forthcoming.

"This is an anomaly," Miller said. "My policy has always been to maintain an open door … and in my tenure, for the most part, we have worked well with the council to resolve issues like these."

Hatch maintained that the council is now obligated to take further action on the document, specifically because of possible unintended consequences.

"We will now, as a council, have to separate the issues included in the resolution we passed and address the veto applied to them in override votes," Hatch said. "It's only necessary now because of the structure of the veto document."