Now that a ballot measure to indirectly fund body-worn cameras for law enforcement has failed, Clark County leaders say they remain optimistic about finding the money.
The county is weighing several options, including a sales tax proposal or asking for help from state and federal delegates, said Clark County Councilor Gary Medvigy.
“Everyone wants it,” he said. “It’s just a matter of figuring out how to fund it.”
On the November ballot, the county tried a round-a-bout way to fund body-worn and dashboard cameras for the Clark County Sheriff’s Office. That measure is currently failing by double digits.
Its failure comes as establishing body-worn cameras has become a growing amid a number of fatal police shootings.
Proposition No. 10 proposed a small sales tax increase to fund juvenile detention facilities and jails. County officials contended they could then use the money already being spent on those facilities to pay for camera programs.
Election results won’t be certified until Nov. 23, but the proposal is trailing by 17,000 votes. Medvigy, a former judge, couldn’t identify a specific reason why voters turned it down.
“We certainly heard from a few constituents that it was confusing,” he said. “And I personally heard from half-a-dozen who said they were angry because they would have voted for it had they known it was for body-cameras or dash cameras.”
Councilors, on Dec. 1, will discuss another sales tax idea using a separate state law. Under this law, the proposed sales tax would split the funds between the county and cities.
The sales tax could raise as much as $6 million, of which about $3.6 million would be Clark County’s share. The remaining dollars would be doled out to cities based on population size. Cities would have latitude to spend their portion on other public safety needs.
However, some councilors disagree on that path. According to Medvigy, before the county can bring the tax before voters, the county needs to hear from cities how they intend to spend any money.
“We’re not going to (tell) the voters ‘Just give us more money.’ We don’t do that,” Medvigy said.
Councilor Julie Olson, who also supports funding the camera programs, contended that approach sets the county up as a gatekeeper of funds.
“I don’t think it’s our role to require the cities to provide us a plan on how they spend any tax money that comes their way,” Olson said. “They have public safety agencies they know best, and I would hope that the council would not hold this ballot measure hostage in any way.”
The cities of Vancouver and Camas have both already committed money toward establishing camera programs. Vancouver, in July, landed a $1.5 million federal grant.
Medvigy noted, at the Dec. 1 meeting, that he hopes to discuss the county pursuing its own federal grants.
A spokesperson for Republican U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, who represents Battle Ground, said she has talked with county officials and, “stands ready to work with the county on any formal request they submit.”
