Category Archives: Local Government

Of Politicking {grimace}

Posted on by
4

Although this is not my campaign website and I’ve tried to avoid making it seem like such, I did open that can of worms myself with Monday night’s post. For that, I apologize. This weblog is typically reserved for education issues, state and local government matters, with some personal and parenting trivia or commentary with extraneous things thrown in.

The challenger candidate in the school board race is out there working hard, going door in a long-sleeve dress shirt and tie, even on hot sunny days. He’s obviously working his base, and this morning, we were both greeting people coming in for the first day of early voting. In his campaign style, he shows promise. (Does that count as a sufficient "attaboy?")

Yes, I believe that voter contact is absolutely necessary — not only during the campaign, but also once elected for the duration of the term. I’ve been participating in some door to door and similar efforts, though I’m certainly not about to detail my campaign strategy in a public place. I will tell you this: I hate yard signs (although yes, there are several in my yard), and I believe that local elections have gotten far too expensive. Thus, I don’t have — and won’t have — as many yard signs out as some, and I won’t raise or spend anything in the range of what many municipal elections have cost in recent years.

I’m running on my record: I have worked toward and completed many of the issues I set forth when I first ran five years ago, and when I was elected four years ago.

When I noted that the young man did not attend Monday night’s work session, it was, in my opinion, a legitimate critique. The budget is one of the most important functions of the school board, and this year, it is particularly complex due to pending changes from Nashville — changes that we are cautiously optimistic will be positive, but we won’t know until early June at the earliest. That complicates matters.  We were told was to not plan any June vacations this year; it is almost certain that our budget will have to be amended.

On another venue, LeeRoy Gilliam asked if Oak Ridge could ever support a younger candidate, and the answer is yes. Mayor David Bradshaw was only about 25, I think, when he was first elected. But he had completed his education, was employed as a full time professional, was married and owned a home. Those elements were evidence of stability and responsibility for a man of his age. Even so, I recall that his first couple of years on City Council were a little rough.

* * *
There is no question that there are people who would love to see me defeated, not for my actions (or lack thereof) as a member of the school board, but purely personal. That’s a risk I’ve taken in remaining true to who I am instead of pretending to be someone I’m not; in some cases, it was a risk I took because I thought it was the right thing to do.

In doing so, I knew there would be a few people who looked for anyone to support in my stead at the next opportunity. That is underway, and I’m aware of it. The flip side is, there are people who thanked me for doing the right thing at some of those decision points, and they support me in this race because they believe that I will do the right thing, even if it is difficult, risky, or unpopular in some quarters.

That’s why I do what I do.
* * *
Early voting started at 11 a.m. today, and continues until 6 p.m. at the mall — the entrance nearest the flagpole. And yes, I would very much appreciate your vote.

WorkSession

Posted on by
12

The School Board held a work session tonight on the FY08 Budget, and the potential impacts of proposed changes in State and local funding.

The Governor has put forth BEP 2.0, but the cigarette tax has not yet passed, and there are several possible plans for phasing in the formula change (all of which are positive for Oak Ridge).  It was an exceedingly productive hour — just an hour — for which two of the three candidates for school board were present.

The challenger, I suppose, already knows everything he needs to know about the budget and the impact of changes.  Funny, since even those of us who live and breathe it learned a few things.  As I drove to RealtorChick’s for a quick visit afterward, I realized why the young candidate wasn’t at the meeting; it seems he was taking his evening constitutional along Briarcliff Avenue.

I waved.  He waved.

I thought about the meetings I attended when I was running for this office, and how lost and uninformed I would have been without having done so.

Liveblogging: Council Budget Adoption

Posted on by
12

Continuing from last week’s meeting that was postponed due to a conflict with Ch. 12 after 7 p.m., the City budget presentation will be made during the regular City Council meeting, which begins an hour early due to a lengthy agenda.

First, a proclamation was passed in honor of "Police Week," May 13-19. A resolution announcing the retirement of Nix, an exemplary police dog, was also passed. Nix will live out his retirement with his handler, Jock Coleman. Police Memorial Day is on Tuesday, May 15. The ceremony is brief, and is worth attending.

Next, Council approved an amendment of the FY2007 Appropriations Ordinance increasing the general purpose school fund, by $557,868 as additional federal and state revenues were received and approved by the Board of Education. It didn’t cost the City another cent, but the rules require Council approval of any change in the gross amount of the schools budget. The funds were earmarked for specific expenditures (about $300k for one-time staff bonuses from the state, and the remainder was for federal grants tied to specific projects).

Following up from the recessed work session last week, Jim O’Connor presented the City’s proposed FY08 budget. The tax rate would increase from $2.55 to $2.62 — a seven-cent rise. Seventeen cents’ worth of city department requests were denied. Appropriations to nonprofits remain flat from last year.

Each cent on the property tax rate generates approximately $70,000.

Local sales tax collections are declining, which puts pressure on the property tax rate. Like the schools, the City is using a significant sum from their fund balance. The growth shown in the property tax revenue bar represents both growth in property value as well as the proposed seven cents tax increase.

The largest single expenditure is to the schools, followed by police, fire, and debt service; next are recreation and parks, public works, administration, solid waste, library, capital maintenance, street maintenance, community development, grants, and economic diversification.

Cost increases come from energy and materials costs, insurance (medical budgeted to go up 10%), and a proposed 3% pay adjustment ($360,000).

The City proposes to add 29.82 positions in the FY08 budget.

Steve Jenkins reminded us that the "Major Policy Guidelines" specifies that the tax rate goal shall be $2.55 for FY08. By holding to those guidelines, the schools’ request adds $563,000+, with an impact of 7 cents on the tax rate — $1.75 per month for the average homeowner. Knoxville, Humboldt, and Memphis remain above us in tax rate, and would continue to be above us even if the tax rate increases seven cents.

David Bradshaw asks John Smith, Chairman of the Board of Education, if we have a response to the long-term estimates requested last week. Smith asked that Karen Gagliano, the Schools Director of Business and Support Services, provide the response.

Over the past seven years, the schools have requested an average of 8.3% annually (which was not granted). The increase goes to 19.6% if we incorporate the amount of fund balance used over that period. However, those numbers are using the current state funding model, and as everyone realizes by now, the Governor has proposed significant funding increases and other projects such as Crestpointe.

After this year, there will be less than $1M in the fund balance available to use. Hopefully though, the other revenue sources will materialize before we get to the FY10 budget where an anticipated 19% increase might be requested.

Lou Dunlap asks why the Chamber of Commerce does not receive the same percentage increases as, for example, the Convention & Visitors Bureau; O’Connor responds that the Chamber is a negotiated contract rather than a City department, and there are specific performance milestones (e.g., specific increases in both property and sales tax collections).

Steve Jenkins showed a chart illustrating the expected tax increases if the City departments’ and schools’ requests are funded (with no significant growth in revenue), indicating a seven cent increase this year, 40 cents next year, 42 cents for FY10. Those numbers assume NO GROWTH in sales tax collections — the picture should current efforts like Crestpointe fail.

The strategic plan assumed growth in the property tax rate beginning next year, but not these kinds of increases. Obviously, the strategic plan also assumed growth in revenues which have not materialized.

Mosby asks what kind of sales tax growth is needed to offset these increases; Jenkins responds that a 1% increase in sales taxes represents about $70,000 in revenue, which means that a 1% increase in sales tax collections saves a penny on the property tax rate. Jenkins further states that the problem can only resolved through simultaneous growth in sales and property tax revenues, because too much reliance on one or the other tends to stifle growth.

Discussion ensued between O’Connor and Jenkins about the cost/benefit of new homes — there are costs such as solid waste collection associated, but additional households also represent additional disposable income for sales tax collections.

There were also questions about the senior citizens’ property tax freeze now working its way through the Legislature (which is optional for local governments to adopt).

Jane Miller asks what would happen if the schools request is funded, but we then receive a "windfall" from the State. John Smith explained that he is prepared to call a work session so that we can be informed about the impact if the measure is passed. If that is the case, we would have to call a meeting to adjust the budget. There are too many unknowns at this point, not the least of which are potential strings attached that would dictate specifically how the money could be spent.

Karen Gagliano explained that of the proposal received to date. While we would receive additional funding for teacher salaries, ELL and at-risk students, we would lose the Cost Differential Factor which has benefited Oak Ridge. The new formula would be substantially more simple, so that normal people could understand it.

We have received no information yet on reporting requirements.

Lou Dunlap asks if we have any idea when the Legislature will act on these proposals, but all we know is that it is expected to be within this Legislative session (ending in late May or early June). Jim O’Connor says that Jim Hackworth told him today that the initial allotment is expected to be fairly large… but no one knows exactly when or how much.

Mosby asks if this year’s school budget is balanced, or if there are "black holes" in there. Karen explains that she had to do a BEP estimate before any of the current proposals emerged.

David Bradshaw reminded the public that City Council does not make line adjustments to the schools budget, but can do so with the City budget. The floor was opened for citizen comment.

Citizen comments are summarized here.

 

ABBATIELLO’S DIATRIBE

Abbatiello opened by putting up a spreadsheet showing the Oak Ridge Schools’ finances from 1996 to present, repeating his outright lie that the school board has “refused” to answer his questions.

“We will face a difficult time tomorrow without the schools sharing the responsibility for constraining spending.” He then proceeded to allege that Oak Ridge Schools are overstaffed, by showing the decline in student population against the increase in schools staff. However, these numbers have not been affirmed by the school system.

Oddly enough, his timeline would seem to show a correlation between the implementation of the strategic plan and the flattening of the sales tax.

THE VOTE:

The ordinance to fix the tax rate at $2.62 (a seven cent increase) was moved and seconded, reflecting the full request of the school system and the City budget as presented). David Bradshaw added that the Council has some flexibility in the timing of the second reading, but tax cards do go out June 1.

Abbatiello asks to have his list of questions and request for answers included in the permanent record.

Lou Dunlap asks Steve Jenkins to plug in a 10-cent tax increase, with five cents to the schools and five to the City. This would reduce the schools’ transfer by $140,000, and increase the City’s allocation by $350,000.. Funds on the City side would be allocated to the list of unfunded requests, which would be prioritized.

Jane Miller asks if this would make the tax rate $2.65. She then asked what would happen if we increased taxes by 14 cents (which would add $490,000 to the City budget, fully funding the schools). "I think we should worry about this year this year, and the out years when we get there."

Audience members wonder in whispers if this is a way to blame a 14-cent tax increase on the schools…

Abbatiello contends that the strategic plan has worked; Ms. Dunlap answers that it has resulted in growth, but not growth in revenue.

If the rate increase planned for next year (by the rate of government compensation increase, or something like that) were implemented this year, it would result in about a ten-cent increase.

Note to Daco: I’m not on Central Time… I feel like I’m reliving last year. But in just a few weeks, we’ll all be in the trendiest new acronym time: Post Leonard Abbatiello Years (PLAY).

Beehan notes that next year, we need to start this process much earlier. I agree. The problem is, like this year, we often don’t have the numbers we need — enrollment, state revenues and mandates like the "wellness coordinator" this year — to provide the kind of firm numbers needed for accurate planning.

Jane Miller expresses her highest regard for the school, it’s principals, teachers, coaches, and employees… but how will she vote?

Bradshaw: my preference is to tweak our policy and keep it in place until we have time to review it. If we move up the implementation of a 10-cent tax increase this year, what does that do to the model in the out years? What does that do in terms of growth rates and taxes?

Beehan: a plan is a plan, but if we see the need for adjustments, we can make them.

Abbatiello rambles on, summarizing that "DOE doesn’t pay its fair share."

Bradshaw’s big question is whether the estimated growth rate in city funding, combined with the Governor’s planned increases, are those two things combined enough to meet the schools anticipated needs? John Smith responds that we will certainly attempt to answer the at question, given the limits of what we know.

The motion on the floor is to set the tax rate incorporating a seven-cent increase. Lou Dunlap moves to amend by reducing the schools’ request by $140,000 and increasing the city’s allocation by $350,000, resulting in a ten cent tax increase, effectively moving the policy up one year by this proposed tax increase that was originally scheduled for 2009. Jackie Bernard clarifies that the guideline cannot be amended in the same motion as the appropriations ordinance, so the motion reverts to a simple 10-cent tax increase divided equally between the city and the schools.

Jim O’Connor clarifies that the additional city revenue would go to unfunded priorities such as street resurfacing and other items on the list.

Mosby proposes a proportional split rather than an equal split, given that the schools’ overall budget is such a large portion of the city budget.

Go ahead. VOTE.

ON THE AMENDMENT: passes unanimously. Now, the amended ordinance is to adopt a tax rate of $2.65.

The ordinance passes unanimously. The second reading is scheduled for two weeks from tonight.

BEP 2.0

Posted on by
2

Although I received a ton of documentation about the Governor’s new plan — BEP 2.0 — just after his speech on Thursday, it’s taken me a few days of drinking from the fire hose to begin to assess the impact on Oak Ridge.

Here’s the bottom-line data for FY08; the second column from the right, "Difference between February budget and version 1 plan" is the amount of additional state funding each district would expect to receive, over and above the February estimates (already included in our FY08 budget, as adopted).

The question I’ve heard most often so far has been, what does this mean to the Oak Ridge Schools’ budget request from the City? Would that give us enough to meet budgetary needs without the money above the 4.1% increase that Council had planned to allocate?

The answer isn’t a simple one, for several reasons. One, the Legislature hasn’t passed anything yet, so at this point, it’s just a proposal — not a marriage certificate. Secondly, we don’t know the strings that will be attached (one of which will almost certainly be a 3% pay raise, which does carry a local match requirement). Even with the salary increase and local match, it looks like we’d still be okay… but we’d still be using $1.3 million of our fund balance — almost all that remains.

So if the Governor’s proposal does pass in the Legislature, we could go without a local property tax increase, but we’d be heading into the following year with almost no reserves above the 3% that we are forbidden to touch except in narrowly-defined emergencies. If Council would fund our full request this year, it’s far less likely that we would need a larger increase next year.

My question is this: if Council passes a budget sticking to their planned 4% increase and then the new State funding does NOT come through, what then? What would have to be cut from our already meager budget that doesn’t even keep up with the cost of inflation in most items (including salaries)?

* * *

I have mounds of data beyond what I’ve linked to, and am still analyzing it. I also have tax rates and revenues for every school district, income averages, and the proportion of local tax revenues spent on education for each district, so it’s possible to correlate whether the gains in state funding correspond to those which are already doing their fair share at home. My objection to the previous prototype is that it rewarded local governments for NOT doing the right thing, and penalized those that are.

That analysis may take a few more days.

In the meantime, I can relish the satisfaction of knowing that my many hours of studying the BEP and various tax and revenue statistics, frequent trips to Nashville both to BEP Review Committee Meetings and to the Legislature, and efforts to coordinate with board members from other municipal school systems about funding changes has not been a wasted effort. This plan appears to be a good one, if only the Legislature will pass it and move on.

* * *

So much for my challenger’s opinion (in the school board race) that we should focus on getting more local revenue first.

Election Coverage

Posted on by
2

As the Oak Ridge municipal election nears, there are several significant decisions on the ballot — two seats on the school board, three on city council (all contested), and a referendum question on the bond issue that will support or kill the Crestpointe proposal to bring a SuperTarget and other new stores to Oak Ridge.

I urge you to do your homework on the candidates. One good source is the Oak Ridge Observer’s candidate profiles, which are now online. As an added web bonus, you can listen to the Candidates’ actual taped responses to the interview questions. The Oak Ridger’s Election Guide will be published on May 9, and should remain on their website through the election. When there’s a link, I’ll post it.

Tomorrow is the last day to register to vote in this election; if you need to register, download the form here and send it in. It has to be postmarked by Saturday.

Political Notes

Posted on by
2

Last night, City Council recessed their budget work session when it was apparent that Channel 12 had to leave just prior to 7 p.m. to accommodate paid programming back at their studio.  I commend the Council for their decision to wait and hold further financial presentations until a time when they can be broadcast for all to see.

Open government is a much better process for everyone.  It protects officeholders from false accusation, since everyone can see what really happened.

 *  *  *
A more open process would have been helpful in the Budget & Tax committee meeting of April 17.  Even though the meeting was open to the public and a few did attend, it wasn’t televised, and there’s a heated dispute now brewing over Councilman Abbatiello’s statement in last night’s work session that "the school board refused to answer" his questions.

As a matter of fact (two school board members and one member of the general public have confirmed this), Abbatiello was given a detailed answer to his question about the number of new students and staff — the question he referenced in last night’s meeting as not having been answered — by Assistant Superintendent Ken Green, at the same meeting where the question was originally posed.

I guess that’s why those meetings are held in a small room, not televised, and are scheduled at times when many cannot attend.  Three school board members (myself included) and the Superintendent were at a NSBA meeting in San Francisco when the Budget & Tax Committee discussed the schools’ request.
*  *  *

The League of Women Voters’ Candidate Forum for City Council and Board of Education candidates is tonight, 6:30 p.m., in the auditorium at Roane State Community College in Oak Ridge.  I found a bit of irony in the fact that the COR group (opposing Crestpointe in the June 5 ballot measure) scheduled their meeting at exactly the same time in a different location; it gives the impression that local governance isn’t important to them.

The candidates may be just as happy to have the hecklers otherwise occupied.
*  *  *

In Nashville, the House K-12 Subcommittee takes up a bunch of bills this morning, including HB0303 (McCormick) that would immediately convert us to the Fiscal Capacity Prototype devised by TACIR — an utter and complete financial disaster for most school systems in Tennessee.  It’s designed to force consolidation to only one school system per county across the state, through financial deprivation.  I hope it dies a swift and sudden death, in light of the fact that Gov. Bredesen is in the process of announcing his own BEP proposal.

I confess that I don’t know the specifics of his proposal, but word got back to me on Friday that "Oak Ridge would be happy."  Not that I want to appear cynical, but I won’t be comfortable until I see it for myself.
*  *  *

I do confess some significant apprehension about basing the Oak Ridge Schools’ FY08 budget on proposals that haven’t yet been approved by the Legislature, which is showing all the signs of going long this year. 

Liveblogging Budget Continued

Posted on by
Reply

The Channel 12 staff had to leave at 7 p.m., and a discussion ensued among Council members about whether to recess the work session until sometime later this week, so that the City budget presentation could be televised.

Agreement was reached to try to have the rest of the work session on Monday night at 7 p.m., half an hour prior to the regular meeting. Mayor Bradshaw asked Council members to keep Monday evening free from 5 p.m. on, with the possibility of meeting at the School Administration Building to have their meeting televised on ch. 15.

City Clerk Jackie Bernard will check with BBB, and will announce the time and place of the meeting’s continuation.

Liveblogging: Council Budget Work Session

Posted on by
1

 

John Smith, Oak Ridge Board of Education Chairman, opened the meeting with an overview of the Schools’ budget for this year.

As a Board, we understand what it takes to provide a quality education. We do the best that we can, as a community, to provide the best that we can. John notes that he has some ideas that he wants to bring forth at the right time, but tonight is not the right time.,

Some of the factors that impact our budget are student growth, commitment to improve student achievement and graduation rates, increases in insurance, retirement, fuel, water/sewer, electricity, etc. We must provide competitive salaries and benefits, we’re facing flat sales tax revenues. We expect an additional 124 elementary students this year.

Children on FRPL have risen to 31%, class sizes have increased, special education needs have increased.

Employee benefit costs have increased, and our staffing ratios must meet state requirements.

The most common factor in our success is our teachers.

Our utilities costs are rising, and our fund balance is being eroded. This year, our unexpended funds from last year were spent on repairs to items less than $50,000, which are not included in the CIP (Capital Improvements Program).

Many of our elementary schools are at the state class size maximum, and failing to adhere to state class size standards costs $50,000 in fines plus the cost of hiring teachers to remediate the situation.

Over the last 12 years, there is a sharp difference in the rate that the city revenues have increased, versus the City’s appropriation to the schools.

Still, there is no school in Tennessee with a higher ACT average than Oak Ridge High School.

Expenditures for Special Education represent 11% of our budget. Federal funds represent only 2% of our budget.

We expect an increase of $997,410 from the State, counting on the Governor’s cigarette tax proposal. Since 1999, increases in BEP funding have been only on the basis of enrollment increases. With this increase in the price people are turning towards vape. Dragon Vape: Canada’s Best Vape Shop suggests that there has been a steady growth in the consumption of vape among adults which has proven beneficial for the vape shops.

Dropped from this year’s budget are Driver Education (except Summer School), adn the Volunteer Reading Coordinator (no, we’re not dropping a volunteer; we cut a staff position for the coordinator of volunteers, which pains me… ).

John Smith detailed the number of teachers to be added, and the corresponding schools and grade levels. Other staffing increases are one custodial or ORHS, 2 computer technicians, and a 0.1 ELL teacher.

$1.3M of non-recurring expenses will be paid from our declining fund balance, but this is the last year. David Mosby questioned whether there is that much left (above the required 3% reserve, but he was looking at a chart showing what will be left after the FY08 expenditure.

John noted that we just received word from Expansion Management Magazine of their Education Quotient Ranking, which is based upon graduate outcomes and community support of the school system. The EQ ranking is used by companies to compare school systems nationwide to evaluate the suitability of the workforce produced by local schools; Oak Ridge was the only system in the state to receive the Gold Medal designation — the highest awarded.

We do recognize the challenge that the City faces, but we ask that you support this needs-based budget.

Bailey notes that we now rank 8th in teacher salaries, but we rank 68th in benefits… our teachers’ take-home pay is NOT the highest in the state — not even close. We’ve tried to honor the City’s financial model, but we can’t offer the same services for the same dollars with expenses increasing. This is not a wish-list budget, and it does not move us forward.

* * *
Mayor Bradshaw notes his concern with the schools’ use of a large amount ($1.3M) of non-recurring funds; this is the last year that could happen. If the City had to fund the additional $1.3M in fund balance, we would be looking at an 18-cent tax increase. “What are we going to do, and have you thought about the long-term impact?”

Bailey responds that this is a result of the schools’ adherence to the “no tax increase” financial model. If expenses are put off for a number of years, as they have been, then the cost is higher in the long run.

Councilman Abbatiello alleges that he provided a list of questions at the April 17 Budget & Finance Committee — an illegal standing committee in my view — and that the School Board refused to answer the questions. Chairman Smith reminded the Mayor of his earlier remarks, that it is Council’s role to allocate funding in lump sum, not to dictate or question how, within the school system, said funds are spent.

The flat property tax rate, combined with declining sales tax collections, has harmed the school system by causing us to use non-recurring funds on an annual basis.

Councilman Beehan asks if we can provide a number to him representing the local burden posed by unfunded State and Federal mandates. That figure is not immediately available, but Bailey says that we can discern the percent of this year’s additional costs that are imposed by unfunded mandates.

Abbatiello points out that he has a list of all the unfunded mandates on the City side, and that they are all covered within the allocated 4.1% growth.

Councilman Beehan asks if the Governor’s proposal to increase the state salary share back to 75% is included in the budget; it is not. if that change is implemented, it will be done using the same 40-cent cigarette tax, so it will replace the currently-budgeted increases in at-risk and ELL funding.

Changed Minds

Posted on by
Reply

There’s another really good letter to the editor in today’s Oak Ridger, from a couple who signed the referendum petition but subsequently changed their minds.  It’s worth repeating:

We signed a petition some weeks ago to call for a bond referendum vote on the Crestpointe proposal. We did so because we resented the clearing of the land of its trees a few years ago and because we thought, albeit naively, that the proposal would be too expensive for us as taxpayers. However, we have reconsidered our opinion and will vote FOR the Crestpointe bond. Why?

Our city services are among the best anywhere. We enjoy backdoor garbage pick-up, rapid-response fire department, accessible police protection, reliable utility service, and high quality schools. We have competent administrators who are efficient at managing expenses in their respective departments with regards toward the tax paying public. However, these services require a solid financial foundation to fund inherent increases in operation expenses. These excellent services are supported primarily by our property tax and by local sales tax revenue.

Since we all wish for our property tax to remain low and we want to maintain our city services at the levels to which we are accustomed, then we must do everything we can to promote retail sales in Oak Ridge. We will not get many opportunities like the Crestpointe proposal to attract a national retail store to anchor another major shopping center in our community.

Some say that the timing is not right; that our community cannot support another major retail center at this time. As non-business folks who do not have a vested interest in retail, we are sure the research team for Target has studied this issue thoroughly. They are convinced that an investment in our community is a sound business venture and that Target and other retailers can make it work on Crestpointe at this time. When sales are profitable for Target, it will benefit us as Oak Ridgers.

Some say that our city leaders might have problems negotiating a contract with “big time” developers. Having recently become aware of all the safeguards that are being built into the Crestpointe contract, we believe our city staff and local leaders have learned from their previous experiences. They are negotiating a package that ensures local money would not be spent on site development until signed contracts are in hand and until the developers have made a large commitment themselves to our community.

Regarding the environmental eyesore that the land has become to our community, it can never be reclaimed to what it once was. Therefore, we should seize this opportunity to “make lemonade out of lemons” and move on.

For these reasons and more, we will be voting in favor of the Crestpointe bond referendum and we urge others, whether they signed the petition or not, to vote for it as well.

Michael and

Barbara Bundy

Oak Ridge

I admit to being surprised that any educator would have signed the petition, but I’ve resisted the urge to make an issue of it.  Quite simply, a substantial portion of education revenues are derived from sales taxes, so it’s in the best interest of those of us interested in better education funding to support efforts to increase retail sales volume in Oak Ridge.

I’m glad that Mike and Barbara have come to the conclusion they ultimately reached, and hope that they are joined by many others whose names appear on that list.


Edu-Budgets: ours and others

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s paper carries the story of a meeting between some School Board members (those who were not at the NSBA Conference) and some Council members (the ones on the budget committee, anyway) last night.  It was a contentious meeting at first, sounds like, because the proscribed "formula" increase planned by the budget and tax committee is 4.1%, while the School Board passed, on first reading, a budget that calls for an 8.8% increase in funds from the city.

In perspective, Knox County is set to ask for a 10.5% increase, of which,

$17.5 million in the proposed plan would go to pay for higher salaries, add positions, upgrade technology and establish the Excellence Through Literacy Program.

I don’t know how much of a pay increase Knox County has planned, but last year, we gave staff a 3.5% raise, while Knox County (and Maryville) gave 4.5%.  This year, even with a million dollar increase in requested City funds over last year, that only includes a 2% increase — less than the freaking cost of living!

Folks, we have the greatest teachers in the world, but we can only count on their affection and altruism to an extent.  We can’t pay them what they’re worth, but we can at least be competitive for the quality folks we do, and want to, attract.

Please don’t wait — contact your favorite member of City Council NOW and let them know that it’s important to fund this meager school budget THIS year and NEXT year, until we can begin turning around the sales tax deficit.  I’m convinced that it will happen, but it can’t happen immediately.

It’s already delayed a year because of the referendum, simply by where we fell in the decision queue.

I don’t want to pay higher taxes either, but I’d rather pay now to keep what’s important while we can still preserve it, than to pay later hoping to rebuild what we once had.