EDITORIAL: Conservation districts’ newfound tax initiative power too great

The 2015 Legislature passed plenty of landmark bills into law. But of course, opportunities were missed, and some head-scratching legislation also was approved. Such was the case with one law regarding the state's 28 conservation districts.

As reported last week by the Review-Journal's Bethany Barnes, thanks to a bill passed by legislators last year, those districts gained the ability to put a question on the ballot asking voters to consider a tax increase of up to $25 per parcel. Currently, districts get perhaps a few thousand dollars in annual state funding, with the Southern Nevada Conservation District receiving $4,000 this year. But in heavily populated Clark County, utilizing the full weight of the new law could bring the district several million dollars.

The Southern Nevada district's seven-member board had looked at a 2016 ballot question of a $2.95 fee per parcel -- which would have brought in about $2.1 million -- but backed off based on negative feedback from the Clark County Commission and the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce.

That concern is understandable. We're all for any call for a tax increase going on the ballot. If a government entity wants more money, we'd rather see that entity take its case directly to the people than go through the political process of power brokers and insiders. Voters should have the opportunity to consider where the money is going to go.

However, the idea that this board has the power to put binding tax initiatives on the ballot, when city councils and and the county commission don't, is absurd. Further, in this instance, the case for a flat per-parcel tax might appear equal, but it is fundamentally unequal. A flat fee isn't the same for someone who owns an older home in a low-income area, compared with someone who owns a house in Anthem or Summerlin. That's why property taxes are assessed at a percentage rate, not a flat fee.

Still, if anything, putting such an initiative on the ballot might galvanize conservative voters to go to the polls. With that in mind, we say bring it on.