Clark County council rejects narrow fiscal-statement proposal for charter amendments, forwards revised recommendation to Charter Review Commission

The Clark County Council on June 17 debated whether to require a fiscal impact statement to accompany county charter amendments and briefly put the question to a roll-call vote before rejecting a narrowly scoped version of the proposal.

Chair Marshall introduced the proposal as a transparency measure aimed at giving voters more information about the fiscal consequences of county charter amendments. Several members of the public, including Ann Donahue and Charter Commissioner Liz Klein, urged the council not to advance the measure in its current form. Donahue told the council the change would give the auditors office "a preeminent power to identify costs and potentially ... place a hand on the scale of the ballot process," and argued that cost projections are often uncertain and best debated in the public campaign.

Charter Commissioner Liz Klein directly criticized the role of the current auditor, saying the office had pushed the amendment and warning of a conflict of interest if the auditor both produced cost estimates and stood to be affected by the measures. "The very office that would gain new authority to issue official financial estimates on citizen initiatives and charter amendments is the one lobbying to create that power," Klein said. Robbie Anderson and other public speakers cited past instances where they said cost estimates by the auditors office later changed, arguing the change could mislead voters.

Legal staff explained the limits and current practice for fiscal statements. Amber Smith, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, said statewide initiatives are accompanied by statutory fiscal statements prepared under state law, but county-level initiatives do not have the same statutory requirement. Smith noted the auditors financial services division has provided fiscal summaries to the Charter Review Commission in prior cycles, but that county ballot materials do not currently include a formal, statutorily prescribed county-level fiscal note in the same way state materials do.

Councilors debated scope and safeguards. Several councilors said they supported making fiscal information available to voters but worried the draft language concentrated power in the auditors office without checks. Councilor Little said she values fiscal information but wanted more time to review the form and past arguments against the change. Councilor Young said he was torn and preferred the Charter Review Commission do more of the work; Councilor Belkot opposed moving the narrow proposal forward, noting voters had previously rejected a similar measure.

A verbal roll-call vote on a narrowly scoped fiscal-statement measure (limited to charter amendments, excluding a required legal opinion and incorporating suggested language changes) resulted in three nays and two yes votes, and the motion did not advance.

After that vote, Councilor Little moved — and a colleague seconded — to send a recommendation to the Charter Review Commission asking it to consider a package of proposed amendments. That package, as described by the mover, would (1) add the phrase "true and impartial" to the financial impact statement language, (2) replace the reference to the "auditors office" with a role for the "budget office," and (3) ask the commission to consider including a legality statement on whether a proposed amendment is consistent with state or federal law. Supporters asked that staff draft a letter to the Charter Review Commission capturing those suggestions and that council members who back the referral sign it. The transcript records the motion and a second; the council agreed to have supportive members sign the letter and to rely on staff to prepare the draft.

Action and next steps: The council approved the minutes for June 10, and the narrowly defined fiscal-statement motion failed on roll call (three nays, two yes). Separately, the council moved to refer a set of proposed language changes and a request for the Charter Review Commissions consideration; staff were asked to draft a letter reflecting the recommended edits and return it for the signatures of council members who supported the referral.

The public hearing portion of the item featured repeated warnings that shifting formal fiscal authority into the executive branch could alter ballot campaigns and that a future auditor could apply the requirement differently. The councils discussion ended with direction to send the proposed changes to the Charter Review Commission for its consideration rather than advancing an immediate county-level ballot placement.

The council moved on to other business after agreeing to prepare the referral letter; no final county placement of the proposed charter amendment was made during this meeting.