To the editor:
Through my involvement with Hancock County Farm Bureau Inc. and Indiana Farm Bureau, I have spent a lot of time talking about and asking questions about Hancock County’s impending jail project. As we approach the spring election, it makes sense for me to share some things I think are important that those in agriculture and other residents might not know.
First and foremost, I think it is important that everyone voting in the May primary understand that failure of the referendum does not mean there will not be a jail constructed in Hancock County! The question, as it will appear on the ballot as I have been told, is as follows:
Shall Hancock County issue bonds or enter into a lease to finance the 2018 Safety and Security Project, which includes the construction, renovation, and expansion of county Criminal Justice Center Complex facilities and the repair of the courthouse roof, which is estimated to cost not more than $55,000,000 and is estimated to increase the property tax rate for debt service by a maximum of $0.1436 per $100 of assessed valuation?
This addresses whether or not the bonds necessary to service the debt created by a jail construction project should be paid for with funds derived from property tax. Failure does not ensure that a new criminal justice center will not be constructed. Why not, you ask? The county has other options to fund the jail such as Local Option Income Tax, and the county is allowed to bond up to $5 million to be paid for by a property tax hike without a referendum.
I have a vested interest in agriculture as do many in our county. According to Indiana Department of Local Government Finance numbers, agriculture paid nearly 12 percent of the county’s property taxes in 2014. While according to The National Agriculture Statistics 2012 survey, those actively engaged in farming made up only 1.5 percent of our county’s population. Increased property tax rates mean more to this group than the average homeowner.
With all this being said, it is my opinion that it is in agriculture and rural landowners’ best interest for this referendum to pass. One thing that I have not mentioned to this point is the property tax caps. Without success of the question above, the $5 million that could be levied to complete the project would all be paid by those not already reaching the caps on their property taxes. Basically that means only the more rural areas of the county would pay property tax on that bond. This means that agriculture would end up footing a large part of the bill in comparison to the other residents of the county.
Ultimately, I think the most equitable solution for paying for any possible jail expansion would be local income tax. The Indiana General Assembly gave counties the ability to raise the local income tax for capital expenditures on jails. Please take a moment to encourage your county council and commissioners to place as much as possible of the expense of any jail expansion on local income tax. That way everyone who works in the county would pay for it, not just those who own property.
Vote yes on the question presented above on May 8.
Jon Sparks
Greenfield
