The Salt Lake County Council, when pondering bond issues for the November ballot, should give Hogle Zoo the same consideration it gave to Tracy Aviary. Council members should accept the compromise proffered by zoo officials this week, and place the proposal on the ballot without what amounts to a poison pill.

When officials from the aviary, a staple in Salt Lake City's Liberty Park since 1938, asked the council to ask the voters for $19.3 million for improved facilities for their feathered friends, the council complied, with one stipulation. The aviary would receive two-thirds of the money up front, and the balance after it completed its $1.5 million fundraising campaign.

But the zoo, which hopes to tap the taxpayers for $65 million while raising $20 million from private sources, was held to a higher standard. The Republican council majority demanded that zoo officials have their entire share in hand before the bonds would be issued for enhanced animal habitats, infrastructure and an animal hospital at the 77-year-old, 42-acre animal park near the mouth of Emigration Canyon.

That caveat, in all likelihood, would be a deal killer for one of the state's top-five tourist attractions, which drew 950,000 visitors last year. A capital campaign mounted by the zoo in late 2006 has netted just $7.3 million to date. And, should the voters give their blessing, the council's requirement would likely delay construction, causing costs to rise and reducing the scope of the project.

Zoo officials pondered the council's conditional proposal and came back with a compromise, one similar to the deal given the aviary, though more demanding. The zoo would raise half of its share, $10 million, as a condition for receiving the first $35 million in public funds. The work could begin, the fundraising could continue, and the county would issue the balance of the bonds when the zoo's capital campaign was complete.

It's a reasonable offer, a fair compromise, one the council should accept when it meets next week.

Instead of favoring fowl over fur, council members should let both proposals proceed, and allow the voters to decide how their money is spent.