Disregarding the jail and its needs, the county has less money to work with than it did a year ago and this will likely continue to be the case for several more months. Other businesses first cut expenses and then, as a last resort, labor costs. The county appears to be doing the same thing. Inmates are on practically a bread and water diet and the commissioners are looking to cut insurance and asking each office to consider laying off employees.
One unresolved argument is just how much money we need to run the jail and why that number seems to go up faster than our own paychecks. Aside from the 1/6 of a cent sales tax for jail operations, there has been no tax increase for ongoing funding of the jail even though since the new jail was built more expenses and state regulations increased the cost of running it. Vickie Wilson, the county’s budget maker, said that if the tax is passed, the jail will have enough funding. That independent assessment makes us feel more confident that we are coming to the end of funding controversy for the jail.
As we wrote a few weeks ago, we have conditioned our county commissioners to request sales tax increases. The popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. This will be our third vote for a jail tax increase. If it’s insane, then what are our other alternatives? When we look at the county’s overall funding, coupled with the fact that the new jail has stricter regulations that cost money and that the county is one of the fastest growing rural counties in the state, we think we are simply short on money. No matter who is in office, they will ask for more money to run the jail because it is under funded.
We feel, based on a comparison of other counties, Sequoyah County needs this tax to pay for the jail. If we do not pass this tax, we would expect another sales or ad valorem tax request next year, just like we have seen the past two years.
We will vote yes for the jail sales tax.
Personal Property Tax Vote
The other proposition on the ballot calls for the county to stop assessing and collecting a personal property tax. First, we would like to point out that its name is a misnomer for most people because the tax is based on how much your real property is worth, not an accounting of your actual personal property. So if you have a homestead exemption and move from a $50,000 house to a $100,000 house, your personal property tax will go up — even if you do not buy any new furniture.
If this measure is passed, the county will increase the real property tax to make up the loss of personal property income. But, it will no longer have to collect the personal property tax, and that will help reduce county government expenses for things such as calculating how much is owed, mailing out bills, and running legal notices to collect unpaid amounts.
This tax is meant to be “revenue neutral.” That means it will not increase tax income for the county, but instead changes the basis on which it is collected. Unfortunately, as our front-page story points out, it is not neutral to all taxpayers. Some will actually pay less tax, others a little more.
If you want “smaller, more economical government,” voting for this measure, like 65 other Oklahoma counties have before us, is the way to go. We believe it is a good idea and will vote yes to eliminate the personal property tax.
