Proposition 4 on the November ballot could have a significant impact on law enforcement in the city of Vancouver. Regardless of whether the measure is approved by voters, it highlights notable issues in local government.
The measure would increase Vancouver’s property tax levy by 5 percent a year for each of the next six years. The added revenue would be dedicated for up to 80 full-time sworn police officers, 36 nonsworn police positions, a traffic enforcement camera program, and an expansion of the Homeless Assistance and Resources Team.
The Columbian’s Editorial Board acknowledges that Proposition 4 would place a significant burden on taxpayers but recommends its passage. The need for increased funding for the Vancouver Police Department is clear. And while we reiterate our support for the ballot measure, today we are focusing on some periphery issues surrounding the proposal.
One of those issues involves efforts by Clark County leaders to undermine support for Proposition 4. Just weeks before the Nov. 5 election, County Manager Kathleen Otto has claimed that an increase in arrests, citations and traffic tickets would require extra staff for Clark County courts, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and the Office of Public Defense.
According to The Columbian, the city of Vancouver pays the county for approximately half the cost of misdemeanor cases, but does not pay for felony cases handled by Superior Court. People accused of felonies account for 90 percent of the incarcerated population at the Clark County Jail, adding to the county’s costs.
Otto said of the city’s proposal for a levy lid lift: “The goal of this is to ensure that the goals of the sheriff’s office and the city of Vancouver are going to be met and ensuring that we have public safety in our community. If we don’t get capacity, we will be a bottleneck, and therefore, those goals will not be realized.”
In an opinion article for today’s Columbian, County Councilor Karen Dill Bowerman adds, “Even at current levels, countywide services are not sustainable.”
There are several problems with the county’s position. One is that the Vancouver City Council approved Proposition 4 in July. But county officials waited until shortly before the election to alert the public to possible implications.
Another problem is that it highlights — and exacerbates — lingering differences between county government and city government. On issues such as law enforcement and homelessness, cooperation and communication are necessary between the region’s two largest governments. That does not mean they must agree, but they should focus on common goals rather than subterfuge.
Finally, the issue demonstrates problems that impact all municipal governments. Without support from voters, municipalities may approve only a 1 percent annual increase to the property tax levy.
Under the laws of compound interest, if a city or county approved a 1 percent levy raise each year for the past 23 years, revenue would have increased 26 percent. Meanwhile, inflation has increased prices 80 percent since 2001, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In spite of that, Clark County leaders have frequently declined to adopt an annual 1 percent increase. Such fiscal austerity diminishes the impact of concerns about the need for increased court, prosecution and jail costs.
Those items represent fundamental duties of county government and rank among residents’ highest priorities. County leaders should embrace that rather than appearing to be soft on crime.
