The good news about a proposed sales tax increase to fund public safety is that voters have plenty of time to ponder the ballot measure. That also is good news for county council members, who have launched the proposal and now must embark on a public relations campaign.
The council is placing a countywide 0.01 sales tax increase on the August primary ballot. The measure, to boost taxes by 10 cents on a $100 purchase, would pay for the operation of body cameras and dashboard cameras for the Clark County Sheriff’s Office.
“This has been a long time coming,” Clark County Sheriff Chuck Atkins said at a public hearing this month. “We’ve been having a lot of discussions and it’s very important that we move forward with this so we can enact a body camera program.”
Indeed, it is important that the county move forward. That was evident last week, when the family of a man shot to death by sheriff’s deputies during a 2020 drug sting filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court. Had body cameras been present, they might not answer all the questions surrounding the death of Kevin Peterson Jr., but they could provide information that protects both deputies and the public.
County leaders have sought to implement body cameras in the past. But a clunky attempt at a tax measure last November was rejected by 58 percent of voters. The ballot title for that measure stated it would be used “for Juvenile Detention Facilities and Jails.” The idea was to free up money for body cameras, and council members believe voters were confused by the issue.
“We dissected (what) we think were some of the many reasons people did not vote for it,” Council Chair Karen Bowerman said. “Probably one of the biggest ones was that they were confused with the financing.”
The county now plans to use one-time federal COVID-19 relief funds to purchase cameras, with the tax used for ongoing expenses. County Finance Director Mark Gassaway said: “There’s a lot of flexibility in the use of this sales tax. In fact, it will probably generate an additional amount that we’ll be able to use to help support our sheriff’s department both on the patrzol side and on the corrections side.”
There is not, however, flexibility for cities in the county that have their own police departments and do not rely on the sheriff’s office for law enforcement. Cities may not opt out of the sales-tax increase, and several officials have raised concerns, emphasizing that municipalities have their own issues they are asking taxpayers to address. Gassaway estimates the tax would generate about $12 million annually, with $7.2 million going to the county and $4.8 million divided among cities.
Regardless of the math, it can be difficult to get the public to buy into even a small tax increase. That is why council members should express support for the measure if they believe that body cameras and dashcams are needed for the sheriff’s office.
The subterfuge of the previous effort to raise funding and the political maze that has led to the tax proposal has generated mistrust among the public.
As Councilor Julie Olson said: “This is an even-year election so there’s a lot of stuff on the ballot, a lot of heavy, political things. Tax measures typically don’t do well in those types of election cycles.”
Success will require robust efforts from officials to clearly and accurately explain what the proposed tax increase would accomplish. There has been confusion on this issue from the beginning; council members and the sheriff must work to clear that up.
