Giles Free Speech Zone

The purpose of the "Giles Free Speech Zone" is to identify problems of concern to the people of Giles County, to discuss them in a gentlemanly and civil manner, while referring to the facts and giving evidence to back up whatever claims are made, making logical arguments that avoid any use of fallacy, and, hopefully, to come together in agreement, and find a positive solution to the problem at hand. Help make a difference! Email "mcpeters@usit.net" to suggest topics or make private comments.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Nothing Is Certain But Taxes, Death And Obfuscation Of The Truth

I started this new thread in order to post an e-mail from the State Equalization Board concerning what is being said by the tax assessor and county executive about the increase in the tax rate. It is claimed by the Tax Assessor and the County Executive that a letter was sent by the state requiring that they increase the property tax another seven cents. As reported by Mrs. Vanzant, when a copy of the letter was requested, that letter had been taken by Mrs Garner on vacation with her. Already a called meeting of the Finance Committee and the Legislative Body has been scheduled for only days after the regular Legislative Body meets on the 18th.
This is from the State Equalization Board:
Property tax reappraisal and certified tax rates.
The closest thing to a prohibition on property taxes being higher in a year of reappraisal is the certified tax rate law, sometimes called “truth in taxation.” This is a summary of the law.

Property taxes and reappraisal
Property taxes are the largest single source of funding for local governments, and are used primarily to fund public schools. The tax is based on a percentage of the fair market value of property determined as of January 1 of the tax year. The percentage of value, known as assessed value, varies according to whether the property is farm/residential property (25% of fair market value), commercial/industrial property (40%) or public utility property (55%). In addition to the property value, the other determinant of the total tax bill is the tax rate, expressed as an amount per $100 of assessed value, which is adopted by county commissions and city councils each year after considering their annual budgets. Taxpayers can discuss or complain about property value at the office of the assessor and the county board of equalization, usually during May or June of the year, and they can discuss or complain about the tax rate at the office or meetings of their county commissioners or city councilmen or aldermen, beginning usually in July of the year.

The law requires that land and buildings be revalued for property tax purposes at least every six years (sometimes more often) because actual property values change at different rates in different parts of the county. Unless the assessor’s recorded values change with these actual rates of change in value, the tax as a percentage of the actual value will be greater for one homeowner or business than for another owner of the same type of property.

Certified tax rates
Higher values during a reappraisal do not necessarily mean higher taxes. The law requires the counties and cities to reexamine property tax rates after a reappraisal to make sure higher taxable values do not automatically result in a tax increase. Known as the certified tax rate law or “truth-in-taxation”, the law requires local governments to conduct public hearings before adopting a property tax rate that generates more taxes overall in a reappraisal year than were billed the year before at the previous year’s lower values. If the new tax rate following a revaluation does not exceed the certified rate, the average tax bill may actually remain the same. If the property value increased as the result of the revaluation more than the average, the taxes may be somewhat higher, while if the value increased less than the average, the tax bill may actually be lower in a revaluation year compared to the year before.

Once a certified rate is calculated by the assessor and chief executive of the tax jurisdiction, and reviewed by the State Board of Equalization, it is submitted to the jurisdiction’s governing body for formal determination, usually for consideration with the budget. If the budget will require an increase above the certified rate, the governing body must publish notice of a public hearing on whether to exceed the certified rate and then may proceed to adopt an actual tax rate after the hearing. If the certified tax rate is exceeded, the jurisdiction must send the State Board of Equalization an affidavit of publication for the hearing notice, and a certified copy of the final tax rate ordinance or resolution.

Questions about the certified tax rate law may be directed to the State Board of Equalization at (615) 401-7883, or e-mailed to sb.web@tn.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the highlights of the above statement:
The tax is based on a percentage of the fair market value of property determined as of January 1 of the tax year

In addition to the property value, the other determinant of the total tax bill is the tax rate, expressed as an amount per $100 of assessed value, which is adopted by county commissions and city councils each year after considering their annual budgets.

Taxpayers can discuss or complain about property value at the office of the assessor and the county board of equalization, they can discuss or complain about the tax rate at the office or meetings of their county commissioners or city councilmen or aldermen

The law requires the counties and cities to reexamine property tax rates after a reappraisal to make sure higher taxable values do not automatically result in a tax increase.

the law requires local governments to conduct public hearings before adopting a property tax rate that generates more taxes overall in a reappraisal year than were billed the year before at the previous year’s lower values.

Once a certified rate is calculated by the assessor and chief executive of the tax jurisdiction

If the budget will require an increase above the certified rate, the governing body must publish notice of a public hearing on whether to exceed the certified rate and then may proceed to adopt an actual tax rate after the hearing.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

What Happened To The $2.70 Tax Rate Set For The County?

It seems that between the tax assessor and the county executive the $2.70 property tax rate that was approved by the Budget Committee and sent to the County Commission after the required public meeting was held, just wasn't enough so without benefit of the Budget Committee or the Commissioners they have decided to tack on another seven cents so that the property tax rate will now be $2.77 not $2.70.

While a regular Commission Meeting is scheduled for the 18 of July, there is now a special called Budget Committee meeting on the 21st of July and a special called Commission Meeting for the next week. Of course since the county planted the new money trees a few hundred dollars extra for special meetings isn't a problem. "PPP" is not an excuse for this kind of wasteful spending.

Questions About The Ice River Springs Deal?

By now most should know that the deal made several years ago by the Industrial Development Board with Ice River Springs to build a plant in Giles County has now fallen through and they want their money back.
As the story goes Ice River purchased the land for the plant and paid $280,000.00 with the stipulation that they would be given the money back if they did not build in Giles County, now they want their money back.

Some questions that need to be answered are where has the money been these past number of years? Has it been invested? Has it been drawing interest? Has it been spent? Has it been in escrow or buried in someone's backyard?

Is the land now worth the same ten thousand dollars an acre or has the land like most all property in the county lost some value. If the Tax Assessor has a say in this question no doubt the land will be worth twice as much now as before the recession.

There is a Board meeting tomorrow, 14 July at 11 am, in the PES Building. Bring your questions and address them to the board.

Is It Time To Exterminate Fat People?

Have we finally come to the time when "fat people" are such a strain on the general public that it's now time to exterminate them for the betterment of society?
Now, that may sound like an incredibly insensitive and absurd question but how absurd was the question of women having abortions in 1910 or the question, in 1944, should children be allowed to begin the school day with prayer? Even as late as 1960 it would have been an absurdity to question if reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance" was appropriate in school.

This is from the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal.
"A pair of Harvard scholars writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association advocate stripping away the custody rights of parents of obese children."
"Despite the discomfort posed by state intervention, it may sometimes be necessary to protect a child," said Lindsey Murtagh, a lawyer and researcher at Harvard's School of Public Health. The study's co-author, David Ludwig, says taking away peoples' children "ideally will support not just the child but the whole family, with the goal of reuniting child and family as soon as possible." Ludwig, an obesity specialist at Harvard-affiliated Children's Hospital, said his eureka moment was when a 90-pound, 3-year-old girl entered his obesity clinic a number of years ago," reports Lindsey Tanner at the Associated Press."
If there is already much strong public criticism about people being overweight and talk of removing overweight children from their parents, Mrs Obama has taken good nutrition as one of her "passionate interests", however it didn't prevent her from having a huge plate of ribs while in Denver or decrease her dress size, how long before the government dictates that us fat people have to go?
When the matter of abortion on demand has been questioned it's met with the liberal mantra "the government has no place in a woman's womb". When the matter of perverted sex comes up it's met with the liberal mantra "there is no place for the government in our bedrooms". Now the question is raised about what we eat and not only is the government in our kitchens they are crawling into our bellies. If the liberals are really interested in the general public losing weight I would suggest the best way for the public to lose a tremendous amount of weight is simply by the government getting off our backs.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Are People Satisfied With The Changes At GCHS and Elkton?????

It has come to my attention that there are many folks very unhappy, to say the least, with a couple of major changes that have been made by the school system.

First there is the matter of Mr. Ron Shirey being moved from the main office to Asst. Principal at Giles County High School.

The second move is far more troubling to me as it involves the hiring of Mr. Michael Gonzales as the new principal at Elkton. Based on past dealings with Mr. Gonzales I fear he does not possess the temperament to be in control of children much less as a principal. Many will remember that Mr. Gonzales was a former School Board Superintendent who had several very unusual events take place on his watch. The arrest of myself and Fred Winkles on trumped up charges and conflicting testimony given by Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Jackson under oath; extensions of the School Directors contract far beyond the next school board's control; the taking of tax money by the school board to make "emergency" purchases of buses then the money was used for other things; the misuse of funds and the bid process for work on the Richland ball fields and walk areas; etc.
Some questions that arise over this employment is was there a public hearing where this hire was discussed? How many other candidates applied for the position and how were those candidates informed of the open position and when were the interviews held? Should the people of Elkton have any say in who is installed as principal especially when there is so much negative in the appointees history?