07/09/2025
No reduction in the county property tax rate!
The budget committee completed its work for the year Tuesday night and is ready to submit to the full county commission a recommendation on the proposed consolidated budget for the 2025-26 fiscal year. The commission is expected to give an up or down vote on the new budget at the July monthly meeting.
After already having approved all other aspects of the budget prior to Tuesday night’s meeting, the committee was left with only what to do with the overall county property tax rate. It was decided by a 6-1 vote to keep the tax levy at $2.51 per $100 of assessed value. Budget committee members voting in favor were Chairman Jeff Barnes, Glynn Merriman, Tony Luna, Mathias Anderson, Tony (Cully) Culwell, and Daniel Cripps. Sabrina Farler voted against it.
Although there was apparently some consideration by the committee to shave a couple of cents off the tax rate, the county’s fiscal agent Steve Bates did not recommend it not knowing what interest rates will be as far out as a year from now when a 12 year capital outlay note is actually issued to fund new jail construction.
“What could we lower the tax rate to if we do the $35 million jail and still pay it off and not struggle,” asked budget committee member Tony Luna
“I can’t tell you to the penny. I don’t really know,” replied Bates. “We don’t know where it’s (project) going to come in at. We are trying to amortize it for 12 years and do a smaller project (than last year’s proposed judicial center). I based everything on what I knew we could do in 12 years (to pay off the note) on the money we have. Even if you bought the land today and they (architects) started (working on) those plans its going to be six to eight months before they get final drawings. I don’t know where rates are going to be in 10 months or 12 months (when the note is issued). I can tell you where they (rates) are at now. I just know we will have to make it work with what we have got (funding),” said Bates.
“What could you lower it (tax rate) to for today (based on today’s interest rates),” asked Committee Chairman Barnes.
“Two pennies probably,” said Bates. “To be safe, I’d leave it like it is (tax rate) but if you need the two pennies you could give it up and revisit it (later). If you cut two pennies that’s about $120,000 (savings) but that’s cutting it close,” Bates explained.
Last summer, the county commission increased the overall property tax rate from $2.00 to $2.51 and all of that increase (51 cents) went to service the debt for proposed construction of a jail/judicial center through the issuance of general obligation bonds up to $65 million. However that project was defeated by the voters in a public referendum during the November election.
After that plan failed, the county commission in the spring asked Bell Construction and Trainor Architects to come up with cost estimates on building a new jail and sheriff’s department at the current location versus an undesignated green space. After reviewing those estimates, the commission determined it would be less expensive to build at a new location and to do a smaller project (compared to a judicial center) in terms of costs. Several sites were considered for the future home of a new jail
During the monthly meeting in June, the county commission voted to purchase 71.5 acres on Smith Road for the new jail not to exceed $1.8 million plus closing costs and subject to favorable core drilling, which has not yet been completed. The commission further committed to issuing notes to buy the land and to fund construction of the new jail at the new site for up to $35 million. Treanor will be the architect of the project although specifics are yet to be determined, as to the number of beds, etc.
“It seems to me at the tax rate now we could pay the jail off in 12 years instead of 20 or 30 years and save a lot of money. Two cents to give back isn’t that much.” said committee member Glynn Merriman.
“I make a motion to leave it (overall property tax rate) at $2.51,” said Luna.
“I second the motion,” added Merriman
Again, the motion was adopted by the budget committee 6-1.
“This way it will save (the county) eight million dollars in interest and nine million dollars moving (jail) to a different site,” Luna continued. “We’ve already saved $30 million building a smaller place. The voters didn’t want the $65 million bond. We didn’t do that. We’re going to save over $40 million. I still think we’re doing the right thing and we’ll have it paid off in 12 years versus 30 years. That was another complaint I heard. We didn’t want our grandkids paying for this. We’re not,” said Luna.
The county has apparently already generated approximately $3 million in debt service funding from the 51 cent tax increase imposed last year which is to be used to help fund the land purchase and related costs.
“This budget shows three million dollars accounted for through an inter-loan fund with the general fund creating the note and the debt service paying it off,” said Bates.
The proposed overall property tax levy as recommended by the budget committee for the 2025-26 fiscal year is the same as the 2024-25 year and breaks down as follows:
County General: $1.2583
Highway/Public Works: $0.0326
General Capital Projects: $0.0733
Debt Service: $0.6160
General Purpose Schools: $0.5298
Total Tax Levy: $2.51
After setting the tax rate, the budget committee adopted the debt service fund and voted to submit to the commission a consolidated budget, meaning combining all budgets together (county general, schools, highways/public works) for final approval instead of voting on them separately.
The county commission will take up action on the new budget and tax rate at its next meeting on Monday, July 28th at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium of the county complex. Of the 14 member county commission, eight votes are needed for final passage and if the budget committee’s vote is any indication, the proposed budget and tax rate already has six votes.
During the public comment period after the committee’s vote, three people spoke out against the direction the county is taking on the jail.
Paul Miranda, who lives near the proposed new jail location on Smith Road, among other concerns raised, said he learned through a public records request new information that had not been previously disclosed.
The following are portions of the public comments made by Miranda.
“Because all of you are also on the jail committee, I presume you have the same copies of the Bell Construction cost estimates for the jail that I received from the mayor’s office after a public records’ request and that you have as vigorously and meticulously reviewed them as I have,” said Miranda. “These are the same estimates that were used to argue against and eliminate the current jail site as an option. My question on these same estimates is why there is an additional 5,000 gross square feet of housing space estimated for a 152-bed facility at the current site versus the same 152 beds on the green site cost estimate? 26,000 vs 21,000 gross square feet of housing space. Using the cost per square foot formula, the current jail site’s additional 5,000 gross square feet of housing space inflates the existing jail site construction cost by $3.5 million with a total cost of $36.8 million. The green site estimate that’s absent that extra 5,000 gross square foot of housing space has a total cost estimate of $28.2 million going line by line on costs. Subtracting that added 5,000 gross square foot of housing, and the additional $3.5 million extra cost, reduces the current jail site build estimate to $33.3 million. Now, suddenly that’s within the recently voted price cap of $35 million that was ramrodded through at the last county commission meeting. Can anyone provide an explanation for this housing size and cost difference? As a side note, there is a 6,000 gross square foot discrepancy on the 200 bed estimates as well. The optics aren’t good. Among many other reasons, perhaps this sudden rush to get everything pushed through shows the inadequate review and scrutiny of everything being considered,” said Miranda.
Miranda’s wife Jodie also addressed the committee. The following is a portion of her comments.
“I’m urging this committee not to approve the budget for the construction of a new jail facility on Smith Road,” said Ms. Miranda. “There are too many inconsistencies in the information, or lack of information to make an informed decision regarding the jail project. There is more work and research needed before making such an important decision with the taxpayers’ money”
“Per the jail building plans that my husband (Paul) obtained from Mayor Matt Adcock through a public records request, the amount of land that is needed (otherwise known as the “extent of site disturbance”) to build a 200-bed jail on a green field is 3.6 acres. I’d like to know how many of the county commission members are aware of this, and what the justification is to approve a $1.8 million, 71.5-acre land purchase when a new 200 bed jail would fit on less than 5 acres? This is a massive overreach, and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars,” said Ms. Miranda.
“Somewhere along the way, many of the commission members lost the ability to make decisions that are in the best interest of the citizens of DeKalb County. Community members have raised numerous concerns about the money that will be spent on the jail, the jail’s location, and the 51-cent property tax increase, The commissioners have not been listening to the voices of their constituents. The public’s voices have been silenced, most recently by the county commission’s violation of the Tennessee Open Meetings Act”.
“As public officials, you are entrusted with more than balancing the books-you’re called to uphold the values and ethics of your community. I respectfully urge this committee to delay the approval of the budget for the new jail project. I’m asking that alternative options are more closely examined first, instead of making decisions that are rushed due to being told it’s the last chance to vote, it’s the beginning of a new fiscal year, or the possibility of losing out on already collected property tax revenue. Doing so will prove to the citizens that you are in fact looking out for their best interest, and not your own agenda,” said Ms. Miranda.
Janice Clayborn, who resides in the seventh district, also spoke and a portion of her public comments is as follows:
“I worked in the Trustee’s office for 18 years and I’ve seen people in this county who can’t afford these high taxes. Everything is going up and you are not thinking about these people at all and it makes me sick. I’ve heard of people coming in crying and barely getting by. I grew up like that and know what its like but a lot of you have had everything handed to you. There are people in this county who don’t have everything handed to them. They are suffering. Their Social Security is not going up and insurance is going up. I’m speaking for those people. There are people starving, hungry, and can’t pay their bills. You have to think about the people in this county. Get your jail but put it on smaller acres. It doesn’t have to be the fanciest thing in town” said Clayborn.
More than two years ago, the county commission adopted a “Tax Freeze” program for eligible elderly taxpayers age 65 or older who qualify
