Monday, Oct. 22, 2007 | 7:13 a.m.
During discussions about University Medical Center's financial woes, it's not unusual to hear Clark County commissioners emphasize that the hospital is a public service. And, they'll tell you, public services cost money.
So, if UMC is not a money maker, that shouldn't come as a surprise. You wouldn't expect the county to make money paving roads or operating parks, would you?
When it's put in that context, residents must decide whether UMC is a service they want. And if it is, are they willing to pay for it?
How do you take that argument to the next level?
Literally let residents decide. Put a tax increase for UMC on the ballot and let voters decide whether they want to pay to keep the hospital financially viable.
It's an idea that hasn't been mentioned during the yearlong discussion about how to keep the hospital's finances out of the red.
Until last Tuesday, that is.
County finance chief George Stevens brought it up during the monthly UMC financial update he gives commissioners.
State law allows commissioners to propose a ballot question to pay for emergency service and follow-up care for uninsured patients. The county could propose a property tax levy of up to 2.5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, Stevens said. Such a tax would have raised $25 million if it had been in effect this year.
Stevens also told commissioners that UMC lost $12.6 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2008. That's less than last year, but on pace to exceed its budgeted loss.
Commission Chairman Rory Reid said Thursday it was too early to talk about a possible property tax to boost UMC's revenue.
"We are in the process of hiring a chief executive officer and we are monitoring the hospital's operations," Reid said. "I think it's premature to talk about anything else."
What else did commissioners decide was premature Tuesday?
If you said allocating millions of dollars for courthouse renovations, stop by Chief Judge Kathy Hardcastle's chambers to pick up your prize: A free copy of "Night Court - The Complete First Season."
Hardcastle and other court officials want $14.7 million to renovate county courthouses to make room for six new district judges who will take the bench in 2009.
Not so fast, commissioners said.
First, court officials and county staff will have to take a closer look at alternative scheduling, such as night and weekend court.
Those measures might allow existing space to be used more efficiently, reducing the need for some of the proposed capital costs. If court officials have ruled out alternative hours as part of the solution, commissioners want to know why.
"The reasons I've heard not to do this aren't compelling to me," Reid said.
Court Spokesman Michael Sommermeyer notes that court officials recently visited Maricopa County in Arizona to take a look at its 24-hour arraignment court. Judges also are conducting a survey on attitudes toward night court, he said.
Commissioners are expected to take up the issue again in about 30 days.
Behind the UMC and courthouse issues is the looming cloud of economic downturn.
In the last quarter of fiscal 2007, the county's consolidated tax revenue declined by 3 percent. Stevens said that's never happened in his 22 years with the county.
Why is that bad?
About 45 percent of the county's revenue comes from consolidated tax, which is made up mostly of sales taxes. For the current fiscal year, the county budgeted for 6.5 percent growth in consolidated tax revenue. But for July - the first month of the fiscal year - revenue declined by about 1 percent, Stevens said.
The county has enough in its reserves to deal with a downturn like that for about 18 months, Stevens said. After that, it's all thunderclaps and lightning bolts.
archive
