Clark County Proposed Charter Amendment No. 25

Labels are based on a detector's reading of the text and are not a claim about the author.

The statements in this pamphlet are printed exactly as submitted. No spelling, grammatical, or other corrections have been made.

Hide highlighting appears humanappears AI-editedappears AI

Statement For · Paul Harris

statement likely AI

Committee: John Jay, Chair

Tax Increases Should Require Broad Support When families and businesses are already paying more for everyday expenses, government should think carefully before asking taxpayers to pay even more. This amendment raises the standard for future council-approved tax increases by requiring a minimum two-thirds affirmative vote of the County Council before a new councilmanic tax may be assessed, levied, or increased. A supermajority requires Councilmembers to work across political lines and build greater consensus before raising taxes. Requiring broad support also provides greater tax predictability for households and businesses, encouraging long-term investment and responsible planning. This does not change any current tax or fee. It does not reduce or eliminate any current county service or program. Clark County will continue providing essential services, including public safety, roads, and parks. Instead, this amendment protects taxpayers from future tax increases approved by only a narrow majority while encouraging future County Councils to build broader support before asking taxpayers to pay more. At a time when families and businesses face rising costs, this added safeguard helps ensure tax increases are carefully considered before they are approved. An “Approved” vote supports greater consensus before raising taxes. Tax increases deserve broader support.

Rebuttal of argument against

Amendment 25 does not claim to cut taxes, nor does it cut funding or services. Funding can still be approved by a Council supermajority or voters, including for public safety on this ballot. The County faces rising costs, but so do families and businesses. Calling this “veto power” ignores the alternative: just three councilors can impose a new tax on 550,000 Clark County residents. Amendment 25 simply requires broader support for Council-imposed tax increases.

Statement Against · Dorothy Gasque

statement appears human

Committee: Janet Landesberg, Chair

Not a Tax Cut Please vote No on the proposed supermajority amendment. This amendment will not cut your taxes because most taxes are not set by the County Council. Counties already have tight limits on raising taxes, and voters must approve extra taxes such as bonds and levies. County Council has not taken tax increases lightly. In 7 of the last 14 years, they did not approve the 1% property tax increase allowed by law. Threatens Services You Rely On By not increasing taxes by 1%, Clark County has had a hard time keeping up with services people expect and that the state requires. A supermajority requirement makes it harder for the Council to fund law and justice which is 73% of the county’s budget. Approximately 1/3 of this goes to the Sheriff’s Office. Maintaining roads, providing timely permits, funding parks, and insuring water quality might also decline without the 1% increase. Gives Veto Power to a Super-Minority The supermajority requirement sounds like a simple 2/3 rule, but with only 5 councilors, 2/3 means 4 out of 5 or 80% of councilors must agree. This would make Clark County the most restrictive in Washington. Allowing 2 councilors to control county funding puts public services at risk. Vote No on proposed Amendment 25!

Rebuttal of argument for

Don’t be fooled. The pro statement is right about one thing: this won’t lower your taxes or cost of living. It only limits a small fraction of your taxes – those that include funding parks and public safety. A minority’s veto could starve that funding while costs keep rising. Real predictability means services that keep pace with inflation – not fiscal paralysis. Council seats are nonpartisan – there’s no reason to limit its authority for a fake “consensus.”