Enact income tax.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Trying times call for bold leadership, and these are trying times indeed for Lane County.

Confronted with the loss of $40 million annually in federal payments, the Lane County Board of Commissioners will meet Wednesday to consider whether to enact an income tax or put it on either the May or November ballot.

Under normal circumstances, the prudent course would be to put a proposal to establish Oregon's first permanent countywide personal and business income tax on the ballot and let voters decide its fate. To do otherwise usually invites referral by petition, followed by attempts to recall offending commissioners.

But Lane County's current situation isn't normal. When commissioners put the income tax measure on last November's ballot, the focus was on bolstering the county's threadbare public safety system. County officials were still hopeful that Congress would extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, which provided Oregon timber counties with more than $220 million in annual payments in lieu of taxes on federally managed forest lands.

Now, the situation has changed. Drastically. The county's public safety system is still overextended and dangerously inadequate. That problem is greatly compounded by the failure of Congress to renew the county payments program - and the gaping hole that leaves in the budget that goes into effect July 1.

With county officials preparing to cut more than 300 jobs by July 1 and eviscerate public safety and other vital county services, commissioners should proceed without delay to enact a simplified, scaled-back version of the income tax proposal that was narrowly defeated last November.

Commissioners can significantly reduce the chances of referral by limiting the size of a new tax to close to the $20 million needed to replace the loss of federal payments to the county's discretionary general fund and dedicating revenues exclusively to public safety.

That will be a difficult challenge for county officials, who will be sorely tempted to use a new income tax to address a broad array of pressing county needs. Already, some commissioners have said they want the new tax, either directly or indirectly, to provide funding for animal regulation, veterans' programs, extension and other services. Those are all worthy programs, but they don't belong in what should, and must, be a streamlined, bare-bones proposal to replace federal payments and protect public safety.

If commissioners succumb to the temptation to add even a few ornaments to a new income tax, they will increase the risk of referral and will incur the wrath of wary voters who have now rejected 12 consecutive county public safety money measures, many of them festooned with extras that helped seal their doom.

The county must also make certain the new tax avoids the complexities and unintended consequences that plagued last fall's proposal. Based on the results of their post-election survey of voters, commissioners should abandon the property tax offset that unfairly benefitted some property owners while pushing up the income tax rate. Since the county is legally required to exempt public sector retirement incomes, commissioners should make certain they give private sector retirees a break, as well.

If the new income tax ends up being referred to the ballot, the county would be able to make a compelling case for sustaining a streamlined, simple tax that's focused exclusively on replacing federal payments and funding public safety. The choice before voters would be clear: Do they want to replace the lost federal funding, or lose the critically important services it provides? Do they want to provide a dedicated, predictable source of funding for public safety - or do they want to sit by and watch jail beds emptied, sheriff's deputies laid off and the county's juvenile detention facilities shut down?

Enacting an income tax would be just the first of several steps for the county. Once it's clear what, if any, funding the federal government will eventually provide rural timber counties, Lane County should make the corresponding adjustments in the new tax necessary to keep faith with taxpayers. If commissioners want to expand public safety and other county services, or restore the road fund, they should ask voters to approve the new taxes needed to pay for those services. Once the fiscal haze finally clears, the county should give voters an opportunity to amend the county charter to include a cap on the new income tax.

Trying times call for bold leadership. Commissioners should enact a simple, no-frills income tax that is dedicated to public safety. Sooner rather than later.