Perry County Council enacts 0.25 percent public-safety tax

PERRY COUNTY – With a 6-0 vote by the Perry County Council, a highly debated countywide public-safety income tax was adopted Thursday.

“We have discussed this … and maybe cussed it … this is something the council has really done its homework on,” said Council President Steve Goodson as he opened the meeting.

“We don’t want to tax people to death  but, yet the need for putting this in place is greater than …” Goodson continued before yielding to other comments.

Starting Jan. 1, wage earners in the county will have a 0.25 percent tax assessed on their incomes. Based on a salary of $25,000 a year, that comes out to an annual tax of about $62.

The new levy will generate an estimated $405,000 for the county to help pay for ambulances, law enforcement and fire protection. Each of the county’s three incorporated communities of Tell City, Cannelton and Troy will also receive allotments proportionate to their  populations.

The revenue from the public-safety tax is expected to initially help county officials alleviate many of the costs associated with the jail and sheriff’s department. Eventually, the council hopes to add an additional ambulance crew, of which that venture was listed as one of their top priorities. Though there are many ideas about what the money could fund, specifics have not been hashed and Goodson announced “this money has not been earmarked in anyway.”

Though the council was not initially in agreement on the issue, based largely on concerns raised by the public earlier this summer, in the end, it was their consensus the tax is needed. Trying to meet an Oct. 31 deadline to get the tax in place for Jan. 1, earlier this month, they met in a work session to discuss many of the facets they believed made the initiative an imperative. Paramount to their reasons included several unfunded state requirements that have to be met, along with ever-tightening local budgets.

The new tax could be used to help relieve some of those tensions, the council believes, and allow them to focus on some of those “troubled areas that need to be attacked,” said Goodson. Prioritized lists laying out what the money will actually go toward have not been drafted and could be several months off. However, Goodson highlighted possibilities to maybe fund initiatives that would help the jail and sheriff’s department maintain full staffs. Both departments have undergone personnel turnover issues and are currently understaffed.

Taking the side of the previous remonstrators and dissenting on the favoritism expressed by other members, Councilwoman Dianne Rudolph pointed to worries expressed by several speakers at a hearing convened at the Schergens Center in August.

She said people at that time favored new programs that would directly benefit the community and was averse to simply padding the county’s general fund. Rudolph raised similar concerns Thursday, telling members, they need to be as specific as possible in defining uses for the money; otherwise “the waters would be muddied” and if that is the case, she couldn’t support the tax.

However, when it came time to cast her vote, Rudolph and her cohort, Councilman John Taylor, who expressed similar apprehensions, sided with the majority.

Pointing out that several areas have already been mentioned as goals for the money, Councilwoman Jody French, said their finances are in a “pretty critical state” and the tax is important to “keep what we have.” She added that countless hours had gone into investigating the subject and “we’ve got the research, the numbers, and the need is there.”

French went on to say they won’t be able to know what can actually be funded until the money starts coming in, making it difficult to create an initial timeline for spending. Additionally, the funds will be administered in regular installments throughout the year, which will further make that initial process difficult. The council announced previously they plan to build a reserve before they decide where to apply funds. That could entail an entire year’s worth of income before any final decisions are made.

With an acknowledgment the initial emphasis would be to bolster current programs, county commissioners present at the meeting took issue with what they saw as a hit to one of their key plans. They have long said areas of the county are underserved by ambulances services and, as such, another part-time emergency medical service crew is needed, with a possibility it could become full-time down the road.

The commissioners included a request of $150,000 to fund a venture in their 2016 budget, but as expected, had it cut during council reviews. Since the issue was introduced, they have said the only way to pay for the ramped-up coverage would be through the public-safety tax.

Hearing that the crew may be on hold, Commissioner Randy Kleaving pleaded for leverage and implored, “if we don’t put a crew on with a public-safety tax, it will never happen.” A key component to why they backed the tax, he reminded the council Perry County’s EMS has relied on other communities for help with coverage and said “Spencer County has been backing us up way too long.” Kleaving cited disquieted tensions from the neighboring county’s ambulance service and their apprehension about leaving communities there to aid Perry County. He went on to explain renegotiations of mutual-aid agreements between the two agencies has left this county more vulnerable in times of emergency than in the past. He urged that “we look out for the people of Perry County.”

Goodson agreed that some ambulance response times have been “downright terrible,” and it should be addressed.

Attempting to alleviate some of the concerns about the uses of the money, Councilman Danny Bolin maintained they cannot commit to any funding at this time as priorities are identified. He said the ambulance crew is “very high on the list,” but giving a definitive nod “is not something we can do tonight.”