Commission will need to have a
two-thirds majority to pass the
litigation tax, but the
resolution will only require a
simple majority.
Estimating the number of cases
around 13,000, with a tax
collection at 60 percent, Budget
Director Tracy Blair said
supporting a debt of about $20
million over 20-25 years would
be “very doable” with the new
tax in addition to the one
approved earlier to pay for a
second judge.
“It’s one of the options that
was presented to us by the jail
study committee and I know my
thoughts throughout the process
in trying to take care of some
of the jail issues that we’ve
been working on for the recent
past is trying to do what we
need to do to meet state
standards and state regulations
without causing any kind of a
tax burden on the people of
Loudon County,” Steve Harrelson,
commission chairman, said.
Commissioner Van Shaver said one
concern he had was while some
have considered the additional
tax a “user’s fee,” people
needing to use the courts for
simple reasons will be the ones
penalized.
“When we’re told about this,
it’s just going to apply to the
people who use the judicial
system and then it gets
convoluted in saying kind of the
bad guys, the people who get
arrested, the people who get in
trouble, and that’s fine except
historically and factually with
record we can prove those people
rarely pay their fees, fines and
bills and that’s why they keep
getting picked up and put back
in jail — failure to pay court
costs, failure to pay fines and
so on and so forth,” Shaver
said. “So those people generally
don’t pay anyhow. If they claim
indigent status, they never have
to pay.
“But if you or I go the Justice
Center, if you have a child
custody issue, if you have a
property issue, if you have a
speeding ticket, whatever it is,
this $50 will be applied to
every user of the court system
regardless of what your
circumstances are,” he added.
“... It’s so expensive to go
down there and even file a case
with Loudon County because our
fees and fines are so high.”
Shaver said he believes property
taxpayers are already paying for
services.
“They’re paying property taxes
for services and one of those
services is our court system and
our judicial system and our law
enforcement system and every
other system that the county
government provides its citizens
that should be paid for by our
taxes we already pay,” Shaver
said. “The folks going to court,
under Russ’ (Johnson) opinion,
they’re going to pay a second
user fee. They’re going to pay
the property tax and they’re
going to pay a user fee at the
courthouse, so I don’t even buy
into this whole it’s just going
to affect the people that use
the court system.”
Loudon County Mayor Rollen
“Buddy” Bradshaw said the county
needs to leave its options open.
“If commission even chose to do
the extra litigation tax, do we
have to do the full $50?”
Bradshaw said. “Is that part of
the (Tennessee Code Annotated) —
would that be an option? Could
we do a — if we needed some
extra funding for it, could we a
$20-$25 extra fee on it?”
Shaver said he opposed the tax
under all circumstances.
“That would be $100 we’ve added
to the current litigation
costs,” Shaver said.
Another way to pay?
Shaver presented commission an
alternative that could pay for a
$1 million-$10 million project
without additional taxes.
In 2018, the county will free up
$400,000 of general service
debt, and an additional $275,000
will be available in 2020.
Shaver said freed up money in
addition to a little extra to
cover the difference until 2020
could make a project up to $10
million feasible.
“It’s affordable, it doesn’t
require anybody to pay any
additional fees, taxes, it
doesn’t put a burden on our
general fund, and it solves all
of the pressing problems that
we’ve been told over and over
are faced at the jail, which is
overcrowding, officer safety and
classification,” Shaver said.
“We eliminate all of the
problems we’ve been told that
are at the jail.”
Although a number of areas could
be considered, such as taking 2
cents out of the Loudon County
Board of Education debt service,
a number of payment in lieu of
tax agreements or even the
county general fund, Shaver
noted the main area to look at
would be the courthouse and jail
maintenance fund, which brings
in $124,000 annually and
currently has $414,000 in its
fund balance.
“The courthouse and jail
maintenance fund is ideally
suited for this first of all
because it can be used for debt
service,” he said. “It’s a
current fee that’s already being
charged.”
A project up to $10 million
could be possible, Bradshaw
said, noting he wants to ensure
any addition is not a “Band-Aid”
but a long-term solution.
Michael Brady Inc.,
representative David Matlock,
who was present at last week’s
workshop, said his firm would
need to get with the jail
committee to start making cuts
on the design to fit $10
million.
No meeting date was set as of
Friday, Bradshaw said.
“I think it’s something we
definitely need to explore,”
Harrelson said. “My hopes are
that we definitely can do an
addition to the existing jail
facility that will provide us
enough bed space to meet state
standards, take care of officer
safety, take care of
classification, those things
that we really need to address.
I’m hoping $10 million or less
that we can attain that goal,
and if that’s the case, then we
can do that and pay it with debt
that we’re getting ready to pay
off next year and in 2020. So we
could potentially do that
without any additional tax
increase on the people of Loudon
County.”
Commissioners Bill Satterfield
and Leo Bradshaw during last
week’s workshop questioned being
able to complete the project for
just $10 million.
Shaver said the county does have
room to go slightly higher, but
up to $10 million would give a
“ballpark figure” to consider
moving forward.
“I don’t think the requirements,
the technological requirements
that you have to put in a jail
for monitoring prisoners and
safety and all (is affordable
for $10 million),” Satterfield
said during the workshop. “I’m
like Leo — there’s a difference
in building just square feet
building classrooms and building
a jail that has to meet
requirements.”