Spending more to serve might have consequences

Steve Marcus / FILE

A homeless man naps in the hot sun last month on Foremaster Lane in downtown Las Vegas. Clark County Social Service Director Nancy McLane has begun making cuts in her budget as a debate continues between county and state officials about the amount that can legally be spent on such services.

By Joe Schoenmann (contact)

Thursday, Aug. 6, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Lost in the debate over county social service cuts is a question some officials say could affect local government’s financial health for years: Would increasing spending on homeless and other social services during the recession commit Clark County to setting aside a greater share of its budget for such services once the economy, and tax revenue, rebounds?

Commissioner Tom Collins raised that possibility Wednesday, after receiving a written opinion from a legislative attorney that the county could legally spend more on social services than it currently plans to.

County officials, while saying they would like to offer more assistance, have maintained state law places a ceiling on such spending.

“All 17 counties are worried about this,” Collins said. “If we start contributing above (the state cap) ... it might open the door to more spending. Then at what level do you apply the new standard, to every unemployed indigent person in Clark County? I mean, how far do you go? And if we stop, does someone sue us to spend more?”

Nancy McLane, director of Clark County Social Service, has begun making cuts to stretch her department’s scaled-back budget through the fiscal year — including a reduction in emergency rental assistance from three months to two months, which the County Commission approved Tuesday to save about $2 million.

McLane warned that if the county applies the state’s interpretation of the law, it would “make the spending caps meaningless.”

“It would expand our client base and the expense of providing services to indigent people ... and that is problematic because there are huge issues with poverty throughout Nevada and I’m not sure we can address them all,” she said.

The debate over spending on the homeless and other social services has to this point largely consisted of county officials and state lawmakers blaming the other for the cuts. The county claims it’s forced to cut because the Legislature raided county property tax revenue to balance the state budget.

A legal opinion from Legislative Counsel Brenda Erdoes, which was requested by Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, D-Las Vegas, stirred the debate again this week.

Based on the three-page opinion, Conklin said Wednesday it’s clear that Clark County has the legal right to spend more. A state cap exists, but he said it doesn’t apply to much of the social services spending that the county is cutting. “In fact ... the county has an obligation to augment its spending,” he said.

County counsel Mary Ann Miller said Tuesday that ignoring state spending caps could put the county in legal jeopardy.

Taxpayer groups could sue, alleging the county is spending more on social programs than is allowed by state law. Social service advocates could go to court to force the county to continue funding such services at higher levels.

County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani has sided with the state, saying to argue otherwise is to pit those concerned about human needs against those who seem to care more about the bottom line.

“Real people are going to get hurt,” she said. “And we have an opinion from our attorney saying that it’s malfeasance of office to spend the money necessary to help indigent people. You tell me, is that absurd?”

Giunchigliani has asked Miller to come back before the commission on Aug. 18 to further discuss the issue.