Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Auditor Presentation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County auditor urges caution on 80% tax threshold and ranked-choice authority; residents raise ethics, proclamation concerns
Summary
County Auditor Greg Kimsey told the Charter Review Commission that an 80% supermajority requirement to raise taxes could impede the county’s ability to meet rising public defense costs and cautioned against giving unilateral ranked-choice authority to the auditor. Public commenters urged retaining symbolic proclamations and asked for independent ethics review related to recusal disputes.
County Auditor Greg Kimsey told the Charter Review Commission on March 11 that commissioners should keep problem, alternatives and unintended consequences in mind when evaluating proposed charter amendments.
During a 15-minute presentation and Q&A, Kimsey singled out several measures for caution. He said a proposed amendment that would require an 80% yes vote to raise property taxes (proposal 26-08) would make it “very unlikely” the county could reasonably raise the revenue needed to cover growing law-and-justice costs. He cited a recent court-driven forecast that public defense costs could rise from roughly $9,000,000 to approximately $25,000,000 annually, and said that such fiscal pressure should be considered when setting local tax-vote thresholds.
"If the intent is to require 80% to increase property taxes, that will make it very unlikely that this core foundational revenue source for the county would be able to be increased," Kimsey said, urging commissioners to weigh unintended consequences.
Kimsey also addressed amendments about deputy staffing, legislative-branch performance audits and the prospect of giving the county auditor unilateral authority to impose ranked-choice voting. He cautioned that an inspector-general model carries significant investigative authority used in very large jurisdictions, and he recommended that if the county moves to ranked-choice voting it consider a top-4 primary with ranked-choice tabulation in the general election (as used in Alaska) rather than eliminating the primary entirely.
Commissioners followed with questions about auditing responsibilities and election costs. Kimsey clarified that the county auditor’s office can tabulate ranked ballots with modest additional functionality but that mixed ballot systems (some jurisdictions using RCV, others not) may increase administrative complexity and labor; he did not provide a firm cost estimate during the meeting.
Public comment at the start of the meeting included Julie Kep, who opposed proposed amendment 26-27 (a proposed charter ban on symbolic political proclamations), saying proclamations and resolutions reflect community values and foster public engagement. Caller Bradley Branham urged an independent ethical arbiter after a disputed recusal decision involving amendment 26-03; he recommended the Clark County Ethics Review Commission as an appropriate body to advise the charter commission.
Kimsey answered commissioners’ procedural and technical questions and said he would be happy to return for further discussion. The commission recorded the presentation and moved on to work-plan business and first-reading matters later in the agenda.
