![[Shelbyville Times-Gazette]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate-small.png){kind=small}
RSS
Print
Email link
Respond to editor
Read comments (2)County tax collections are lagging, presumably due to the economy. Currently, the county is about $333,000 behind on property tax collections for the County General Fund for the year, although the hope is that those collections are just delinquent and will catch up before the end of the fiscal year on June 30. Committee members are concerned about the possibility that a property tax increase will be needed to fund next year's budget.
After some discussion, the committee approved the purchase of a vehicle by the county probation department, after hearing that the vehicle and its operation would be self-funding and the enhanced supervision grant funds which will pay for it could not be used elsewhere.
The probation department will use the vehicle for "probable cause" home visits and random home visits to check on its clients. Probation director Rory Griffy said the visits would amount to about 500 miles a month. Committee member J.D. "Bo" Wilson, who has complained recently about the number of vehicles owned and maintained by the county, said the state's guideline is that if fewer than 1,700 miles will be driven, it's more cost-effective to pay employee mileage than to buy an official vehicle. But Griffy said there were security and management concerns which made it more desirable to have an official vehicle than for employees to use their own vehicles to make the visits. Griffy also said it would be impractical to have to use one of the existing official vehicles controlled by courthouse offices.
Commissioner Joe Tillett said that while in principle he opposes the county buying any new vehicles, he understands the special situations governing this case and believes it's the right decision. Wilson eventually agreed, and the motion passed the committee.
The vehicle purchase was included in a budget amendment approved by the committee. Part of the amendment simply involved transferring funds from one line item to another or accounting for grant funds that had been received, but the amendment also included $45,000 in increased food costs for the jail and workhouse.
Now let me see. The county is short in its budget for this year due to delinquent property taxes attributed to the lagging economy. So the next item on the bill is to raise property taxes even higher so that next year even more taxes will be delinquent. Does it not stand to reason that if property owners can't afford to pay their taxes this year, that it will be even more difficult to pay higher taxes next year? What am I missing here with their logic? Can our County Financial Management committee never think of any other revenue producing projects other than continuing to burden property owners with more taxes? There has got to be a way to tap into the resources of all the thousands of working people who do not own property in this county yet enjoy all the benefits and the services that property owners provide. There has also been a lot of discussion in the paper lately about future planning. If we don't plan to recruit some stable workplaces in our city and county and provide better job opportunities and higher pay for the workforce, then the people of this county will definitely not be able to keep up with inflation. Sales tax will decrease because there won't be any spending. (I guess the solution then to that problem will just be to raise the sales tax rate also). It seems there's a hole in the bucket dear Liza, dear Liza, and no one knows how to mend it.
"Griffy also said it would be impractical to have to use one of the existing official vehicles controlled by courthouse offices."
Why?
Sounds like somebody needs to do some better budgeting rather than raising my taxes because someone else doesn't pay theirs or someone doesn't want the hassle of having to schedule times to use a car for 500 miles a month!