There is a mantra, common among many governmental representatives, that says tax increases should be a last resort.
We agree. The problem, however, is that those who cling to such idealism never seem to reach the point of last resort and that any tax increase for any purpose is decried as an untoward burden upon the taxpayers. In truth, responsible governance sometimes requires government to seek more from the public in order to ensure the quality of life we deserve. Effective government does, indeed, cost money; if we expect services and amenities to come without a cost, well, we get what we pay for.
So it is that the Clark County council has approved a 1 percent increase to the property-tax levy for its 2017-18 budget. This marks the first time since 2011 that the county has taken the allowable increase, and the decision requires some clarifications.
First among them is the impact the increase will have on the typical property-tax bill. County taxes represent only a portion of property-tax bills, with other portions going to school levies or state taxes or port taxes. Second is that property taxes in Washington are computed based upon the valuation of property in the entire county; if the value of your property increases, that does not mean your bill will increase — unless that value increased by more than the average property.
Meanwhile, the county council was attempting to address what was projected to be a $22.6 million shortfall in revenue for the budget. This shortfall, in part, can be traced to the management of outgoing Councilor David Madore, who has spent the past four years grasping at every possible revenue reduction without giving proper attention to the big picture involved in constructing a two-year budget of more than $300 million.
Because of that, we suspect that the 1 percent levy increase is necessary, but it also should be accompanied by a word of caution.
In approving the increase, councilors stressed that the county also is making cuts to expenses through spending reductions and increased efficiencies. That also is a frequent mantra, and it is one that requires attention that goes beyond lip service. To ensure that taxpayers are being appropriately represented, “efficiencies” must mean an examination of public-employee salaries and benefits; constant questioning about which departments and services are redundant and can be combined; and a line-by-line look at the budget in a quest to reduce expenses.
This is Clark County’s first budget since a voter-approved county charter has been implemented, creating a new process and requiring diligence on the part of councilors to ensure that they are being good stewards of the public’s money. Madore offered more than 20 amendments to the proposed budget, most of which were rejected, and council Chair Marc Boldt said, “If you’re in the majority, you do the budget. If you’re in the minority, you make the majority look bad.”
That effectively summarizes Madore’s management style, but it does not mitigate the need for responsible budgeting and for a gadfly of sorts on the council. We would hope that next year’s council members will take seriously the need to examine spending — particularly employee benefits — and not consider increases to the property-tax levy to be an annual rite.
As another mantra from the political realm goes, it is easy to spend other people’s money. The Clark County council should work to prove that one false.
