Utah County tables public‑defender pay‑parity request pending ARPA verification and continuity plan

Commissioners opened a discussion of item 7 on July 19 asking whether Utah County should fund a pay increase to bring public defenders’ salaries closer to those in neighboring counties.

Commissioner (Speaker 2) described the problem as a parity and retention issue: neighboring counties are offering higher pay, and the public‑defender office has lost attorneys as a result. He asked whether the county could use one‑time ARPA funds this year and how to create a sustainable funding path for 2024 and beyond.

Ben Young, financial manager for the Utah County Public Defender Association, told the commission the association’s request is to “match the increase in salaries that was given to the county attorneys” and to allow the public‑defender office to retain trained staff. He said the association searches for outside funds when possible but needs county assistance to make the office competitive.

Josh Esplin, chief counsel at the public defender’s office, said the staffing problem is longstanding and has intensified: “The mandate for public defense is from the constitution,” Esplin said, and he described the practical consequence of losing attorneys and being unable to offer competitive salaries.

Commissioners debated options. They compared Utah County’s effective tax rate (reported in the discussion as 0.59%) to Weber (0.87%), Davis (0.72%) and Salt Lake (0.75%) and noted those differences affect counties’ general‑fund capacity. Commissioners raised two constraints: (1) the commission’s remaining ARPA balance was reported inconsistently in discussion ($4.1M versus $4.4M), and (2) using one‑time ARPA money for ongoing salary costs would require a plan to secure ongoing funding for 2024 and later.

Multiple commissioners said a temporary “band‑aid” use of ARPA funds might be acceptable only if staff first verify unobligated ARPA amounts and the public‑defender office supplies a continuity plan setting out how raises would be funded in subsequent budgets. One commissioner noted that ARPA obligations and previously approved CIP and youth‑services commitments could exhaust the ARPA bucket.

After debate, Commissioner (Speaker 2) moved to table the item until staff could verify actual ARPA balances and the association provided a continuity plan. The motion was seconded by the chair and passed by a 3–0 vote.

No final appropriation was made; commissioners instructed staff to verify ARPA balances and to return with a funding continuity plan for future budget consideration.