Ballot question on property tax increase for school construction challenged

Residents are supposed to vote on a property tax increase to fund $120 million in school improvement projects, but a lawsuit threatens to erase the question from the November ballot because of a technicality.

Conservative think tank Nevada Policy Research Institute filed a lawsuit Friday in Clark County District Court that alleged the Clark County Regional Debt Management Commission violated the Nevada open meeting law.

Joyce Haldeman, associate superintendent for the Clark County School District, which seeks the increase, questions whether the institute's motive is solely to ensure transparent government.

"I have no doubt it's politically motivated," said Haldemen, who oversees community and government relations. "It's disappointing and frustrating."

The lawsuit points to a June 7 meeting at which the commission unanimously approved the district's ballot question to increase property taxes for six years to fund school construction projects.

If passed, the measure would raise the property tax rate, now at 55 cents for schools, by about 21 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. Homeowners with a residence assessed at $100,000 would see an increase of $74.20 annually.

But the commission didn't take public comment until after voting, according to the institute. Only one person was in the audience - institute researcher Karen Gray - and she didn't comment when asked, according to several officials.

State law requires public comment to be taken before a vote. The institute argues that because public comment was taken afterward, the vote should be voided and the question removed from the ballot.

"The open meeting law will be pointless if it's not defended when violated," said institute spokesman Victor Joecks, who has opposed the ballot initiative. He denied that the lawsuit is aimed at derailing the ballot question.

The lawsuit based on the June 7 meeting was filed Friday, just shy of the 60-day limit for doing so. But the July 16 deadline to submit ballot questions has now passed, meaning the commission can't vote again on the issue.

Haldeman doesn't believe that's a coincidence.

If it were simply about the open meeting law, the institute would have immediately filed a lawsuit and not at the eleventh hour, she said.

"We filed within the statutory deadline," NPRI lawyer Joseph Becker said. "That's all I'm going to say about that."

Becker emphasized that the institute's "mission has always been making government transparent."

Clark County School Board member Linda Young didn't want to make an assumption about the institute's motives but said, "It certainly doesn't look good."

Either way, it's "extremely unfortunate and unnecessary," said Clark County Commissioner Susan Brager, who chairs the debt commission. She recalls asking Gray whether she had any comments but can't state with certainty that it was before the vote.

"I'd love to say absolutely," but that was almost two months and 10 meetings ago, she said. Brager said the vote would be retaken on Aug. 23 if need be, but the commission's lawyer assure her the ballot question wouldn't be removed because of such a technicality.

Young isn't as certain but said the decision should be up to the voters.

"We'd like to give the voters an opportunity to say what they think about it," she said.

Contact reporter Trevon Milliard at tmilliard@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0279.