The guess here is that few people like paying taxes.
But we also would not like calling 911 only to find the sheriff’s office is understaffed; or learning that mental health services are not available for a needy family member; or being informed that animal control will deal with the rabid dog that wandered into our yard — sometime tomorrow. The fact is that adequate services cost money, and a proficient government is essential to a community’s quality of life.
So, while we don’t like a 1 percent increase in the county property tax levy for next year, we understand the need for it. In approving a $518 million budget for 2019, county councilors included a perfectly reasonable increase to the county’s tax levy — the maximum allowed under state law.
Notably, of the five council members, Eileen Quiring was the only one to vote against next year’s budget proposal. Quiring will take over as county chair in January, after being elected to the position in November, and the hope is that she approaches her new role with reason rather than rhetoric.
As The Columbian reported from the meeting at which councilors adopted the budget: “Quiring offered an amendment that would have removed the 1 percent increase. The county budget is required to balance under state law. Removing the revenue source would have put it out of balance. Quiring offered no further amendments for how to balance the budget. Her amendment died for lack of a second.”
One of the hallmarks of leadership is to present solutions instead of clinging to dogma. If Quiring opposes a 1 percent increase to the tax levy, she should have been prepared to offer an alternative.
Meanwhile, it is important for taxpayers to understand how the county tax levy works. For a median priced home, a 1 percent increase next year will boost the county property tax by $3.41. That number can vary depending on whether a home’s assessed value has increased more or less than the average, and the total property tax is influenced by numerous factors. The bill might include a city tax if a property is in an incorporated area, a school levy, and possibly taxes for fire districts, port districts and even a cemetery district.
Property taxes throughout the state increased this year because the Legislature added a state tax as part of its school-funding solution, and that could lead to decreases in local school levies next year. It’s all part of a convoluted formula that results in your final property tax bill.
For counties, that can create a difficult balancing act. Counties have few avenues for raising revenue that pays for law enforcement or mental health or animal control, and the maximum 1 percent increase inevitably does not keep up with inflation. Clark County has declined to take the 1 percent increase in five of the past seven years, and the impact is evident. County Auditor Greg Kimsey told the council that while local population has increased 40 percent over the past 20 years, the number of staff positions in his office has declined by 6 percent.
Quiring suggests that the county budget should “squeeze somewhere else” rather than impose a levy increase, but leaders have been squeezing for years.
County councilors are expected to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, but they also are expected to provide reasonable services that keep the region running efficiently. Taking a 1 percent increase in the levy next year is a reasonable action that will help keep Clark County the kind of place we like.
