The Clark County Council is once again looking at a ballot measure to fund body and dash cameras for the sheriff’s office. The council reviewed its options for the August primary or November general election during its Wednesday council time meeting.
“We’re really behind the time in modern policing that we don’t have this here in Clark County. Every law enforcement agency in the county fully supports it, the prosecuting attorney fully supports it. Pretty much no one is objecting to it,” Councilor Gary Medvigy said.
The council last discussed funding for body and dash cameras in December after a sales tax measure failed to pass in the November election. That measure would have created a 0.1 percent sales tax to be used for juvenile detention facilities and jails. General fund dollars that would have gone to juvenile detention and jails would then have gone to the body and dash camera program.
This circular funding route left many voters confused and likely contributed to its failure.
Medvigy said whatever the reason for the previous effort’s failure, whether it was confusion or voters simply not wanting tax increases, the county will have to move forward with a solution.
Councilor Julie Olson agreed, adding she thought pursuing a public safety tax that would be split with the cities was the right option this time.
“When we’re asking our public to contribute to whatever the project is — whether it’s a new school, a levy or body cameras — we have to be really direct and really clear,” Olson said. “We need to get everybody on board to support this.”
The public safety sales tax allows counties to create a tax up to 0.3 percent. The county would keep 60 percent of the tax revenue collected and 40 percent would be shared with the cities. The cities could also add a 0.1 percent sales tax but only if the county doesn’t implement the full 0.3 percent tax rate.
The deadline to get a measure on the Aug. 2 primary election ballot is May 13. The deadline for the November election is Aug. 2. The county must provide a resolution, explanatory statements, and for and against statements to the Elections Office by the deadline.
“I would recommend that we look at public outreach efforts to the extent that we’re permitted,” County Manager Kathleen Otto told the council. “Looking at our partners, both internally and within the county, with our law and justice partners, as well as the cities on that public outreach.”
While it’s important to get the decision to voters as soon as possible, Olson said it’s more important the county moves forward the right way.
“I agree that sooner rather than later is in the best interest of law enforcement. I just want to make sure that we don’t rush it so that we can make sure we get enough information out to the public, that we do have the right outreach, we get campaign committees on board, we get people knocking on doors and supporting this ballot measure,” Olson said.
Jail may be factor
Council Chair Karen Bowerman expressed concerns about the work being done in time for the primary.
“That will be upon us before we know it,” Bowerman said. “The general (election) would give us a bit more time.”
Bowerman also cautioned the county may be moving forward with a jail initiative on the general election ballot, as well, and she suggested information on both measures be presented together.
“It’s hard to clearly communicate what we’re doing unless we combine the efforts in some appropriate way … so that we can explain this much of the money is for body cams and this much is for jails, that the public knows exactly what they’re voting on and what they’re voting for,” Bowerman said.
‘Find the money’
Medvigy agreed that the council needs to be open and honest about how it plans to use the additional tax revenue.
“I’m not in favor of raising taxes, but I’m certainly in favor of allowing the public to make that decision,” he said.
Medvigy said the bottom line is that the county needs to fund the program, even if those funds don’t come from a sales tax. With the county flush with sales tax revenue higher than forecasted and federal dollars from the American Recovery Plan Act, Medvigy said the county could look for other ways to fund the program.
“If we need to cut someone else’s budget or the general budget to make this funded, then we should do so. That’s up to the executive branch to find that money,” he said. “My druthers all along would be to find the money in the budget to pay for this program in the most cost-efficient way we can.”
However, Otto said finding the money internally would be difficult. She said many funding sources have restrictions that prevent those funds from going to law and justice. She said the general fund is the least restrictive, but 75 percent of that fund already goes to law and justice.
“I don’t think you’re going to be able to find enough reductions in non-law and justice departments to support this ongoing,” Otto said.
The council will revisit the topic in the coming weeks.
