Paying for government

Tuesday, Dec. 28, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.

An advisory question on last month’s ballot asked voters if the Legislature should get approval from local governments before approving any measures that would take money from them or mandate they provide new services. The majority of voters in the state approved the question.

As David McGrath Schwartz reported in Monday’s Las Vegas Sun, local governments have been upset because the Legislature has used their treasuries to solve state budget woes. The measure was intended to give local governments some leverage in the Legislature this coming year. They’ll be able to point to the results as an indication that voters support their position. On the ballot in all but Mineral County, the question won 55 percent of the vote.

However, lawmakers and state officials are skeptical of the vote. They say that without additional money, the Legislature would have had to cut state services or raise taxes, and they argue that the question didn’t reflect that.

“I always listen to voters, but at the same time, you should ask if we should do away with a service,” said Assemblywoman Marilyn Kirkpatrick, D-North Las Vegas, chairwoman of the Government Affairs Committee. “If constituents were asked to choose, maybe their answers would have been different.”

The measure is not binding, and the Legislature would have to approve it for it to become law, but that won’t happen. Lawmakers won’t give veto power to local governments, which legally are creations of the state. Moreover, as we have noted before, the question is not a good policy because it is backward and would bring the Legislature to a standstill. But that shouldn’t minimize the underlying issue that the question raises about the roles of local and state government, particularly this coming year. Local government officials are right to be concerned. Lawmakers and Gov.-elect Brian Sandoval will grapple with a budget shortfall estimated as high as $3 billion over the next two years, and the state does have a history of raiding municipal treasuries, leaving local governments holding the bag.

For example, as Schwartz reported, in the 2009 session the governor proposed taking a portion of property tax revenue from Clark and Washoe counties. Clark County officials suggested that instead the state take money from a fund for buildings and parks instead of property taxes. The state took both.

Since 2008, the Legislature has taken $238 million from local governments, according to the Nevada Association of Counties. That may have helped the state avoid cutting services or raising some taxes, but what about local governments? That’s something that seems to be lost in the Legislature. Its actions affect local governments, and that affects citizens.

The state can’t push its problems off on local governments and think it has solved the issue. At the same point, local governments can’t think that the vote on the advisory question means they won’t have to share in the budget cuts.

This issue is much more complex than can be summarized on a ballot question, but what the voters want is simple. They want government to work, and they want services — whether they are provided by the state or a local government. Instead of squabbling over whose budget is cut, state officials and local government leaders should be working together to make sure necessary services are being provided, no matter who does the work.