1) january 17, 2012 – 7:30 pm @ knox middle school cafeteria 2) january 18, 2012 – 6:00 pm @...
TRANSCRIPT
1) January 17, 2012 – 7:30 pm @ Knox Middle School Cafeteria
2) January 18, 2012 – 6:00 pm @ North Judson High School
3) January 19, 2012 – 6:00 pm @ Oregon Davis Jr./Sr. High School Cafeteria
STARKE COUNTY JAIL COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETINGS
Welcome/Introductions Purpose of the Meeting
Provide community w/ latest update on the Starke County Jail.
Inform Community of CEDIT legislation being authored by State Representative Gutwein
Introductions Jail Committee Members
Kathy Norem - Commissioner Kim Hall - Judge Dave Pearman – Councilman Marty Lucas – Attorney Ted Hayes – WKVI Ron Henningsmith – CASA Director Carol Johnson Katherine Chaffins – Auditor Oscar Cowen –Sheriff Bill Dulin – Chief Deputy Greg Hewitt – Jail Commander
Financial Consultant: Todd Samuelson - Umbaugh, Associates
Starke County Jail History Constructed in 1976 No major renovations or improvements 2nd oldest jail in the State of Indiana Built to house 46 inmates Currently a 62 bed facility Shifting inmate demographics
Current Problems and Issues
Long standing building issues per jail inspection reports
ADA (American Disabilities Act) Mechanical/Electrical Operational difficulties posing risk to Staff Long standing overcrowding per jail
inspection reports Public Safety Sentencing Reform (?) Class Action Lawsuit
(Attorney Martin Lucas)
SOLUTIONS Starke County Jail Committee Formed Conduct Needs Assessment Explore all Building and Financial
Options What provides the best option for
Public Safety/Community/Tax Payers
OPTION A
Do Nothing Could be forced by Federal Courts to
act (on their recommendations) Cost high (due to potential litigation) Public Safety negatively impacted Equity impact is obviously lower Functionality is obviously not improved Future expansion
OPTION BDevelop Existing Site
Remodeling may or may not satisfy requirements
Cost is potentially higher to remodel/add on
Public Safety could possibly be improved Equity impact is slightly improved, but in
essence this is a Band-Aid Functionality is only slightly impacted
because of site (linear v. pod designs) Future expansion
OPTION C
New Construction on Current County Property New construction would satisfy
requirements Cost is not typically as high as remodeling Public Safety would be substantially
impacted Equity impact is substantially higher (state-
of-the-art facility) Functionality optimum Future expansion
OPTION DNew Construction on a New Site
New construction would satisfy requirements
Cost slightly higher due to site acquisition
Public Safety would be substantially impacted
Equity impact is substantially higher (state-of-the-art facility)
Functionality optimum Future expansion
OPTION E
Lease a New Facility from a Private Entity
Leasing would satisfy requirements (because the board would demand this)
Cost is unknown, and likely hard to control Public Safety would be substantially impacted Equity impact is non-existent Functionality is unknown because we would
be at the mercy of the leasor Future expansion
OPTIONS – Final Note:
ALL OPTIONS BESIDES “DOING NOTHING” WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OPERATIONAL COSTS AND SUSTENANCE.
Financial Options The ultimate solution determined by Starke
County to address the County Jail will most likely involve a significant capital outlay
Over the last couple years, the County has gone through a extensive process to identify/prioritize capital needs throughout the County and available resources to address them
It is clear that the County currently does not have current resources to fund a significant capital outlay to address the County Jail and, as most counties do, would need to issue bonds to secure funding
Bonds for a County Jail project are typically secured by property taxes, income taxes, or some combination thereof
Financial Options Although the County has not yet
determined the ultimate solution for the County Jail, for preliminary basis of evaluating options, we utilized information available to estimate options/impact of a new facility and a bond issue of approximately $13.6 million
Summary of OptionsProperty Tax Income Tax Supported
Supportedwith Property Tax Back
Up
Estimated Bond Issue $13,580,000 $13,605,000
Assumed Interest Rate 5.50% 5.60%
Assumed Maturity 20 Years 20 YearsAssumed Annual Payment 1,210,000 1,220,000
Assumed Tax Rate $0.12 Per 0.65% $100 of Net
Assessed of Adjusted GrossValue Income
The above information is based on an assumed maximum project cost for a replacement jail facility
14
15
ILLUSTRATIVE ANNUAL IMPACT ON PROPERTY TAX BILLS
Residential (1) $50,000 home $11.99
$96,500 home (2) $36.54
$150,000 home $78.23
$200,000 home $117.20
Commercial / Industrial (3) $100,000 assessment $119.90
$500,000 assessment $599.50
$1,000,000 assessment $1,199.00
Agricultural Land One acre (4) $1.80
(1) Includes standard deduction at the lesser of $45,000 or 60% of home value, the 35% supplemental homestead deduction and the $3,000 mortgage deduction.(2) Median home value for Starke County per the US Census Bureau 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.(3) Assumes no exemptions or deductions.(4) Agricultural land is assessed at $1,500 per acre for 2011 payable 2012 per the Department of Local Government Finance.
16
ILLUSTRATIVE ANNUAL IMPACT ON INCOME TAX BILLS
Assumed Maximum Income Tax Rate 0.65%
State taxable income$20,000 $130
$40,000 $260
$60,000 $390
$80,000 $520
$100,000 $650
Financial OptionsOther Considerations:Property Tax Supported Bonds
Circuit breaker (tax caps) impact Would cause further revenue loss to other County
funds as well as to the cities, towns, schools, libraries in the county
Would not address additional funds that may be necessary for additional operating costs
Less progressive- based on property ownedIncome Tax Supported Bonds
Requires legislation at State level to create option for County Council to implement
Need higher revenue stream than assumed debt service due to potential for fluctuation (coverage)
May use coverage for operating expenses More progressive – based on income earned