At some point after the Anderson County Commission meeting on Monday (where the commission voted NOT to drop the lawsuit against Clinton), local officials received the ruling from three administrative law judges who heard the dispute between Clinton and the County over a parcel of land adjacent to I-75.

The Sentinel report includes this statement:

If the county and its cities don’t buy into the judges’ proposal, the matter would go before another panel of jurists. Those new judges would have the power to adopt a growth plan without local input.

County officials have thus far proven quite stubborn in their insistence on keeping the matter tied up in court; at this point, the options appear to be to either give in, or send it to another panel of judges who are under no obligation to consider local input at all.

A couple of years back when the two were still trying to mediate, Clinton presented a rather generous revenue-sharing agreement (even though the County would benefit through property and sales taxes from any development anyway), but the County turned it down. Now, it seems like Rex Lynch wants to go back to the trough:

Clinton’s offer to split sales tax revenue with the county has been taken off the table as far as [City Manager Steve] Jones is concerned, he said Tuesday. The final say-so on that issue, he added, rests with City Council.

“I would hope that the city would be willing to share a portion of that (sales tax revenue) with the county,” Anderson County Mayor Rex Lynch said Tuesday.

If the Clinton City Council is smart (and I think they are), they’d add up their legal costs for the past two years, along with the lost tax revenue from a large commercial developer who walked out when the suit was filed, and ask themselves if the shread of goodwill is worth what they’ve already lost.

Then, adding injury to insult, remember the damage done to Clinton (and Oak Ridge, and Lake City, and Oliver Springs) when the County superseded the sales tax last May, and throw that in, too.

Seems to me it’s time to let the County take their loss and think about how they might work more cooperatively with their cities in the future. Remember, we’re part of Anderson County, too.

In a quarterly daytime meeting today, Anderson County Commission had yet another opportunity to drop their lawsuit against Clinton over a pending annexation issue. In my opinion, the lawsuit was ridiculous to begin with, given that the annexation request came from the property owners themselves… no one was being taken against their will.

But, reaffirming my lack of confidence in most of them,they defeated the motion to dismiss by 10-6. Kudos to Oak Ridgers Robin Biloski and Scott Gillenwaters for being among the six — since the 5-year moratorium on annexation is either expired or nearly so, voting to keep the suit alive is simply wasteful.

Also on today’s agenda was Judge Murch’s request to move the General Sessions Court, Division I, to Clinton (where the Division II court also meets). It has been passed on to the Operations Committee, of which Oak Ridge Commissioners Robin Biloski and Scott Gillenwaters are members.

Early this morning, I wrote to my two commissioners asking that they oppose this move (which would cost Oak Ridge more, while reducing services). Also an early riser, our newest commission member, Whitey Hitchcock, responded with the following points that he planned to take to the meeting:

Assisting law enforcement agencies and the community in addressing crime – especially drug-related crime – is extremely important to the residents of District 6 in Oak Ridge.

The majority of arrests occur in Oak Ridge.

Court involves more than perpetrators and police. It involves victims and the community. They must also travel or be left out of the justice process.

Physical separation of the victims and the justice system lessens the potential for restorative justice; i.e. assisting the offended.
The cost of moving Sessions Court may entail greater overall expense than finding a new and appropriate facility.

Therefore, I believe that it is in the best interest of the county, as a whole, to find and fund more suitable accommodations, within the City of Oak Ridge, rather than transfer court to Clinton.

I urge the County Commission to make this option a priority and to include a detailed cost analysis as part of any decision.

Then after the meeting, he followed up and let me know that the matter had been assigned to committee, and which Oak Ridgers are on that committee. Thanks, Dr. Hitchcock.

It seems that new commissioner (by one vote) John Shuey spent time huddled in the hallway with the Buildings & Grants director, Alan Beauchamp. Suppose he needed help figuring out how to vote? After all, he is the bailiff for the Div. I Sessions Court… seems like he might have some useful suggestions for improving security, if that is in fact the real reason for the suggested move.

Bob Fowler reported on Thursday that the Division I General Sessions Court, which has met in Oak Ridge for 13 years, is likely moving back to Clinton.

With the County’s highest population density in Oak Ridge, it makes sense to have one of the sessions courts meet here. If both are to meet in Clinton, then why have two sessions judges at all? The reasoning for the move is purportedly “security concerns” about the Oak Ridge courtroom, but it would seem that the renovations required to convert the County Commission room to a courtroom would cost at least as much — if not substantially more — as improving security in the existing courtroom in Oak Ridge.

Furthermore, moving the court to Clinton will cost Oak Ridge taxpayers more, as city police officers will be required to travel further, and will be away from patrol longer (probably resulting in an announcement of need for more officers).

And, from the perspective of Clinton taxpayers, there should be some concern about converting the Jolley building (which now houses Regions Bank on the first floor) to entirely public, non-taxpaying use.

Government office reshuffling may reshape the future uses of the five-story Jolley Building, said Alan Beauchamp, the county’s buildings and grounds director.

“Do we want to turn this building into a county services building, a criminal justice center? That’s what we have to decide,” Beauchamp said.

The Jolley building was originally built as a bank, and the first floor is currently occupied by Regions Bank. While I can appreciate the County’s need for office space near the courthouse, there’s something discomforting about the nicest office space in Clinton being reserved entirely for County government.

I plan to ask my county commissioners to oppose moving the court to Clinton.

Tax abatements are the topic of conversations all over town lately, following a close vote for what most people feel is a bad decision — to grant a million-dollar tax abatement to a health club that is already constructed, open, and operating. While a welcome addition to Oak Ridge, that particular business does not contribute much in the way of sales taxes (dues being non-taxable), does not meet an unfilled need, and the jobs created are not in the salary class that particularly merits the incentive.

AnotherThing2 wrote last night about County displeasure surrounding Oak Ridge abatements, particularly a different situation where the City agreed to an in-lieu-of-tax arrangement for a new restaurant on the river. In this case, the developer will pay the full amount of the property taxes, but that sum will be dedicated to waterfront improvements — which benefit him, through creating more traffic to the waterfront, but also benefits rowing activities, which brings a substantial sum in the way of sales tax revenues from visitors who travel to attend these events. It seems likely to spur additional growth in that area, generating new property and sales tax receipts as well.

This arrangement does not upset me, since there’s a clear path to reinvesting in an activity that will increase tax revenues in the long run — not just for Oak Ridge, but also for Anderson County. Especially since the County superseded the sales tax rate last May, it seems that Anderson County would be interested in anything that bolsters sales tax collections, whether in Oak Ridge, Clinton, or anywhere else within the County borders.

Regarding the health club abatement, I can certainly appreciate the concern and resentment. It takes money from the County coffers, just like it does from Oak Ridge, and doesn’t appear to bring anything that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred without the incentive. At the same time, it is possible to structure an incentive policy which works to attract businesses that would benefit both the City and the County — our needs are not mutually exclusive!

It seems that there might be something to be gained from the IDB members speaking with County Commission — or a subset thereof — and discussing the philosophy and interpretation of tax abatements, criteria, and goals.

The only responsible way to deal in tax incentives is to identify very clear goals: bringing businesses that would meet a defined need, whether jobs in a specified field or minimum salary level, retail that meets a demand otherwise filled by shoppers leaving the county, or one that serves to trigger additional development or revenue. In all cases, the IDB should document the expected return on investment.

Providing information on the County’s ROI (separate from the City’s) to County Commission would not entail much (if any) additional effort, but might very well generate a heightened spirit of cooperation between the two. Going through the exercise would also give the IDB an extra “gut check” as to whether a particular abatement was indeed a good investment.

If the deal is not good for the County, it’s probably not good for the City. The “we should be as generous as possible” line quoted from one IDB member was ludicrous; the IDB is not Santa Claus, but is supposed to be more like a savvy stockbroker — one who handles the public’s money with a clear goal of responsible investment and return.

Stan Mitchell tipped me off to a blurb buried in the Sentinel’s business section today: the Oak Ridge Industrial Development Board has scheduled a special meeting on October 3 to reconsider the million-dollar tax abatement granted last week to National Fitness Center, which opened in July.

In a few short weeks, the new gym has already driven an across-the-street competitor out of business. There are no sales taxes collected on fitness club memberships, and the jobs created are not of the wage structure to warrant such municipal largesse. In short, what’s the incentive to give the incentive?

The move to reconsider came when Board members realized that, contrary to the information presented at the time of the vote, National Fitness representatives not only knew about the abatement process ahead of time, but had been urged repeatedly to do so before they even broke ground on the new facility.

IDB Board members are listed below, should you wish to contact them:

William J. Biloski 33 Palisades Parkway

Stephen T. Grady 110 Connors Drive

Douglas B. Janney, Jr. 118 Everest Circle

Alan L. Liby 100 Amanda Place

John D. McKittrick 345 Louisiana Avenue

H. D. Osucha 249 Gum Hollow Road

William M. “Bill” Pardue 222 Connors Circle

Harold E. Trapp 102 Concord Road

David E. Wilson 1079 W. Outer Drive

Tax abatement incentives should be used to businesses or industries targeted to fill very specific needs: defined (high-wage) employment sectors, or retail businesses that meet an unfilled need — thereby keeping more sales tax dollars in our city that would otherwise go to larger shopping areas in Knoxville or online.

I’m delighted to have National Fitness in Oak Ridge, and I hope that they prosper. However, they don’t seem to fit the criteria for such a huge tax break.

Disclaimer: AT’s post was a tangent to this one, where he notes that he does not have a pony in this race.  However, it seemed like a good springboard.

Much has been written about the proposed new hotel on Illinois Avenue, bordering the Woodland neighborhood. Some Woodland residents have been vocal in their opposition, but the concept is not without support, either.

AtomicTumor writes,

I fail to see why it’d benefit anybody but Patel and business interests to put the thing there. You’d think there’d be some kinda incentive that could be offered to the Woodland denizens.

I heard Shailesh Patel speak to a small group on this subject a couple of weeks ago, and he’s actually devoting considerable effort to canvassing the neighborhood, trying to determine what he could do to make the project not just more palatable, but more appealing to the neighbors. It was my impression that he is quite sincere in going beyond what is needed for City approval, and actually is concerned about addressing the neighborhood concerns.

Does Oak Ridge need another hotel? My first thought is, he’s the businessman, and it’s his money at risk. He’s been around here for quite a long time, and he’s too sharp to make a foolish gamble. He’s done his market research, and I don’t think he’d take that kind of chance unless the data backed up his decision.

I doubt that all of our hotels are full all of the time, but there are certainly occasions when they are, notably during rowing events. Our local industries are also ramping up several projects that bring people in on business. Folks that stay in our hotels contribute to sales tax collections not just through their room tax, but also from eating out at every meal. Yet, it doesn’t seem like they would cost us much in the way of City services such as fire, police, utilities infrastructure and schools.

I would be much more suspicious of some out-of-towner like Arnsdorff planning this venture, but Patel lives here, works here, and has kids in school here. It’s worth carefully weighing the consideration he’s put into both the hotel and the neighborhood impact before lining up against him.

Truthfully, would this smallish hotel have more negative impact than the large apartment complex across the street?

Although the location and traffic patterns wouldn’t be nearly as favorable in the empty field across from my neighborhood, I would not object to it going there. Especially if it also attracted a little grocery store and other needed commercial business to the west end.

The new Food City is only about a mile further from my house, but the five traffic lights in between double the travel time. Business can make good neighbors, and good neighborhoods.

The News Sentinel reports this morning that Judge Blackwood, in a re-run of an earlier election hearing, yesterday denied Joe Lee’s petition to void the results of the 7th District County Commission race based upon errors and complications that occurred in the race that Lee lost to John Shuey by one vote.

It was essentially a repeat of the ruling in David Stuart’s earlier case, with a couple of twists: Lee’s attorney had affadavits from three people who had stood in line long enough to obtain ballot applications, but had to leave before reaching the end of the line to vote. All three swore that they planned to vote for Lee, which would have given him a two-vote victory.

Unlike the individuals who allegedly threatened election officials to obtain paper ballots, these three were not given the opportunity to vote by alternate means.

Lee’s attorney also presented that the vote tally, machine results, and certified results did not match, but echoing his earlier ruling in the Stuart case, Blackwood opined that absent evidence of fraud, errors and ommissions don’t matter.

Neither candidate sought to have the result reversed; each asked only for a re-vote in November. A firm precedent exists in the 7th District County Commission race from just four years ago, and the November repeat yielded a solid victory for Jerry Creasey.

If the law only applies when fraud can be proven, why should election commissions anywhere follow an inconvenient law? For that matter, why should anyone?
I respectfully disagree with Judge Blackwood, and hope that both Stuart and Lee pursue appeal.

It’s your money, and you have a right to know how it’s being used.
Each court in Anderson County (which, by itself, comprises the 7th Judicial District) has a bailiff. He’s the guy who says “all arise,” and generally keeps order in the courtroom.

Four of the bailiffs are simply employees of the sheriff’s department, and their salaries accounted for as such: Mark Tackett, BH Barker, Steve Gordon, and John McCulley.

Two bailiffs — those working for Judges Murch and Layton in the General Sessions Courts — are paid out of multiple sources, including General Sessions, Sheriff’s dept., Probation, and Buildings & Grants. Colon McCarty, who is not a sheriff’s department employee and is therefore unarmed in Judge Layton’s courtroom, is paid from the General Sessions fund and the probation department funds, plus $3,000 to work the driving school on Hwy 61 twice per month. John Shuey is paid from three different sources: Sheriff, Probation, and Buildings & Grants (and now, by one vote, also draws a County Commissioner’s salary).

Shuey earns $13,373.38 more than the next-highest paid of the group, thanks to $17,496 kicked in from the Buildings & Grants fund, courtesy of his buddy, Alan Beauchamp.

The payroll records are here.

Gee, I wonder how Shuey will vote on matters pertaining to Beauchamp’s department — both the sunsetted Probation Department, and the ongoing Buildings & Grants line item?

After he was elected the first time in 1998, County Mayor Rex Lynch told me personally that Beauchamp would have no budget and no employees. In 2002, he asked me why I don’t like him: I responded that I don’t dislike him — I distrust him, because he has lied to me.

This was only the first of several. My level of trust in him is unlikely to change, but for his own sake, you’d think he’d have learned by now that cronyism is a bad way to do business, and people will find out the truth.