The Oak Ridge City Council’s Budget and Finance Committee will meet at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 and Tuesday, February 20, 2007, in the Municipal Building Training Room.
The agendas for those meetings are as follows:
February 6
February 20
After a nice resolution in honor of "School Board Appreciation Week," Council got down to real business.
First, an ordinance was adopted designating the Highland View Redevelopment area as a residential rental inspection district. The whole resolution is here (page 25), but in essence, it permits housing inspections in that district only.
They approved a resolution accepting $1.3 million in payment in lieu of taxes, which Councilman Abbatiello noted was about 1/10th of what it should be. Nonetheless, it was unanimously approved.
Another greenway was approved, continuing the Melton Lake Greenway under the bridge at Bull Run, which will hopefully connect our greenway with those in Knox County at some point. (Knox County? What about the rest of Oak Ridge?) Councilman Beehan brought up a need to eventually connect the West end to the East side, coming through the middle of town.
A resolution was approved to award the contract for shoreline stabilization at Melton Hill Lake. Part of the stabilization will occur on private property (now Flatwater Grill), but the owner will make a payment in lieu of taxes in the amount of the shoreline stabilization cost. A new dock is included.
Planning Commission: Council re-appointed Linda Brown and Marty Cole to the Planning Commission. There will be eight elections up for grabs at the Feb. 19th Council meeting on various boards and committees.
Golden reported on the meetings of the Budget & Finance Committee, which will meet on the first and third Tuesdays at 5:00 p.m., each month leading up to the budget process. The first meeting will be held on Feb. 6, and a calendar for all meetings will be up by the beginning of February.
Abbatiello called attention to the fact that the "corridor study" is coming up, which he promises that the Planning Commission will be apprised of. Secondly, all members got a copy of the tax incentives report "which was incomplete, as it lacks a return on investment on each of these items." O’Connor said that information would be provided. Lastly, Abbatiello asked whether any progress has been made on the AMSE property; David Bradshaw noted (as president of the AMSE Foundation) that information should be forthcoming by the end of the year.
THE BIG DEAL:
The City Manager addressed the possibility of siting a super-Target anchored shopping center (450,000 sq. ft.). The City would have to provide $10.5 million, to be paid from the redevelopment of the property. Craig Cole of GBT explained that Oak Ridge is "underserved by retail," but the desired locations are all along Illinois Avenue, where there is a shortage of available land.
Pine Ridge is a development challenge, but it’s available. They plan to call it Crestpointe, but acknowledge the significant challenge of developing the site. That’s why they need $10.5M. Much more dialogue and discussion will occur at the work session next Monday evening.
O’Connor says there will be risk for the City, as well as for GBT, but they’ve checked and double-checked the development potential and now desire community input. Really.
Bradshaw notes that it’s an opportunity, but it’s a big investment, and it will require a comfort level and approval from the community before Council will be prepared to approve the project. However, upon questioning from Councilman Beehan, it was agreed to try and hold the meeting in the Council chambers so that it can be televised, and to try to adjust the time so that School Board members may attend prior to our meeting at 7 p.m. (Thank you, Tom!)
Wrapping up was simply a discussion of meeting dates, followed by the appearance of citizens (there were none).
The Chamber of Commerce sent out a notice late Friday about a major economic development announcement at 5 p.m. today, and I attended. There are plans for a SuperTarget and associated shopping center in an ambitious project atop Pine Ridge.
It’s not a sure thing — there are some concessions to be made from the City, which will be briefly outlined at tonight’s City Council Meeting. More details will be made available at a work session on January 29, which I can’t attend, since it’s scheduled for the same time as our January School Board meeting.
However, the sales tax revenue stream to the schools would be an enormous help, not to mention the availability of more goods locally.
Watch tonight’s meeting if you can. I’ll try to blog it, if I can pick up the library’s wireless from there.
Today’s Oak Ridge CAFE article puts the City’s “share alike” plan into perspective, with a very easy to follow analogy… but it’s just part of the picture.
In the FY07 budget, municipal expenditures (police, fire, public works, community development, recreation & parks, library, general government and administrative services) increased by the same percentage (4.25%) as the allocation to the schools, but they didn’t increase equally: the City’s share went up by $664,419, while the school system saw an increase in City funding of only $492,068.
Oak Ridge Schools represents 42.55% of City government expense (excluding special funds like solid waste, golf course fund, etc.).
Maryville devotes 68% of the local budget to schools, and they, like us, are a full-service city with police, fire, libraries, parks, etc.
Alcoa spends 56% of its city budget on schools — and that’s before debt service, which would raise the percentage.
* * *
“Share and share alike” isn’t really the case within the City departments, either; several departments saw increases of greater than 4.25%; General Government, Police, Fire, Community Development, and Recreation and Parks all got bigger increases, with Community Development leading the pack at a 7.8% increase. Those larger increases were offset by decreasing percentages for Administrative Services and Public Works.
The schools’ budget, or any budget for that matter, would be really easy to develop if one simply applied a percentage increase to each item, and left it at that. To do so would be grossly irresponsible though; each year, we assess our needs, priorities, and external costs (things we don’t have any choice about paying for)and budget accordingly.
If the school systems was truly considered on equal footing with City departments in allocation of funding, shouldn’t the allocation be based upon justified need (as is the case with other departments), rather than a fixed percentage?
I hope this year will be different.
I attended an interesting meeting last night in Maryville; it seems that the cities who support municipal school systems have (finally, in some cases) taken notice of the grave threat to school funding posed by a concerted effort to change the fiscal capacity formula, which drives the local funding requirement portion of the BEP.
Folks traveled a goodly distance — some from Athens, and a group from Kingsport — to hear the presentation and to meet other local officials similarly situated. Without question, we carry more clout if we’re all speaking from the same page when we go to Nashville.
While there, I also heard a rumor — but just a rumor — that Sen. Rusty Crowe may be named Chair of the Senate Education Committee. It was, in fact, Sen. Crowe who invited me to address the Senate Education Committee last year when the TACIR System-Level Prototype was presented to them, after I explained the preceding evening how many millions the school systems in his district would lose under that plan.
We should know by the end of this week who’s chairing what. And yes, Daco, today is Wednesday. All day long.
For three years, I’ve made an issue of getting more schools’ information online — information for parents, such as grade and attendance matters now available through K-12 Planet, as well as information for the community, such as our full budget.
K-12 Planet is now fully deployed in the middle schools, and is in a transition phase at the high school (some teachers participating, others not, but it’s my understanding that it will be mandatory next year).
The full Oak Ridge Schools budget is also online. I’m not sure exactly when it went up, but it’s there. It’s a large file, so be patient… but it’s the up-to-date version that was passed on May 30.
ATTENDANCE AND TRANSPORTATION
Tomorrow evening (Wed., January 17, 6-8 p.m.) the Board of Education will hold a work session with two items on the agenda: a new proposed attendance policy, and transportation issues.
The proposed attendance policy is in its third revision (the first version was discussed here on Oct. 31). The original draft was based upon the wishes of the Juvenile Court and District Attorney’s office to have the same policy in place in all three school systems in Anderson County, but I had some problems with it and voted against it on first reading. It passed, but subsequent revisions in the drafts have incorporated my concerns. There has not yet been a second reading, so it’s not finalized at this point.
I recognize and respect Judge Meldrum’s desire for fairness by having the same policy in place across all three school systems, but I also believe that there needs to be some provision for the application of common sense. In short, there must be some allowance for the principals’ judgment in excusing absences that do not fall within the narrowly-defined criteria.
At the same time, I have pointed out that the Judge is elected to represent the interests of all of Anderson County, while I am elected to represent Oak Ridge specifically — including a small portion of Roane County. The needs of the three school systems in Anderson County may often coincide, but not always.
Policy should be somewhat broad, and the accompanying administrative bulletin clarifies how the policy is to be implemented and carried out.
The work session will be held in the teacher center conference room, and is open to the public.
John Huotari covers the first meeting of the City’s “Budget and Finance” committee in today’s paper, summed up in the closing paragraphs:
Judging by the back-and-forth exchanges between city and school officials on Tuesday, budget talks this year could be contentious, as they were last year.
Last year, a 4.25 percent increase in school funding from the city was controversial because it was less than what school officials had requested. A larger increase would have required a property tax rate increase.
The Oak Ridge school system gets about 29 percent of its funding from the city.
It’s the statement that “a larger increase would have required a property tax rate increase” that bothers me, because it’s only half true. It would have required a property tax increase unless City Council chose to cut from some other area of increase — maybe the $800,000 in new vehicles, delayed replacing all the playground equipment in Bissell Park, etc.
Aligning City staff raises and “longevity payments” with what the schools’ staff receives would have made a big difference in the bottom line as well. For example, the City Manager’s increase this year alone was more than the total increases accrued by the Director of Schools since he arrived in Oak Ridge six years ago. If I’m not mistaken, the Director of Schools manages a larger budget and more staff than the City Manager, which makes the disparity seem out of line.
Don’t misunderstand: I realize that some of our City staff were earning salaries below market value, and we needed to correct that. However, some of our school non-licensed staff are also far below market value, and that correction was one of the things that had to be cut.
That four newcomers have picked up petitions to run for Council is encouraging; it means that at least four people are not entirely satisfied with last year’s performance. The election will come too late to make a difference in this year’s budget process, unless…. unless some of the incumbents would like to be re-elected, and realize that a large number of people are very concerned about the constraints on the schools’ budget.
Should some choose not to seek re-election, it’s anyone’s guess as to how they may proceed.
Our City Council is comprised of seven good people. Several are personal friends. But what happened last year was very bad, very lopsided, and should not be repeated.
Sometimes though, even friends can be wrong.
An early preview of the Oak Ridge Schools FY ’08 budget (scheduled for adoption April 12) will be a topic of discussion at the School Board meeting on Wednesday, January 3.
The “budget concepts” document (be patient, it’s a large file because it was scanned) provided to the Board is very preliminary, but does illustrate some of the relevant challenges. Among them are the fact that we still have not implemented the Compensation Study, which means that some of our employees are paid significantly less than market value. In addition are changes to the Alternative School to address No Child Left Behind issues… probably graduation and attendance rates, as much as anything.
I think most of us have asked ourselves, what if “alternative school” really was an alternative (for kids who just don’t fit in, for whatever reason, to the standard school model) rather than it’s present form, which is more like what most of us called “reform school” a few decades ago.
The part that concerns me most is that we are projected to continue “spending down” our undesignated fund balance, leaving us almost no cushion against unexpected expenses (i.e., food service equipment or HVAC systems that fail sooner than planned).
If you’re interested in the school budget, you may want to read through this before (or during) Wednesday’s meeting.
As expected, voters living in a 200-acre tract on the east side of the I-75/Hwy 61 junction have indicated by referendum that they wish to be annexed by Clinton.
The vote was 22-0. KNS has the story.
What is surprising — and disappointing — is that some County Commissioners continue to think in terms of blocking or delaying the annexation by Clinton. It’s clearly not a matter of principle; it’s a matter of greed. Anderson County will gladly agree to the annexation for a share of Clinton’s tax revenue. The deal they proposed Monday night is strikingly similar to what Clinton offered two years ago — before the 5-year ban on annexation had expired, and before a lot more time and money were spent on legal maneuvering.
It’s no surprise to me that Clinton is not interested in sharing now, since it appears that the annexation will be finalized without any concessions to the County (which has not put much effort, it would seem, into encouraging development on its own).
When any development occurs in Anderson County — whether within the boundaries of a city or not — the County collects additional revenue. It’s called expanding the tax base, and is greatly preferred to raising the tax rate. But to provide a reasonable level of services, it is necessary to do one or the other. Anderson County will realize a windfall for Clinton’s success, as well as that of Oak Ridge, Norris, Lake City, and part of Oliver Springs. They don’t have to do anything except get out of the way.
Anderson County Commissioners: please do so.
The on-again off-again referendum over whether or not Clinton shall annex property adjacent to I-75 in the Bethel community will go forward, following Chancellor William Lantrip’s ruling yesterday.
At the last County Commission meeting, Commissioners approved a new “master settlement agreement,” wherein the County would share in the portion of tax revenues that would ordinarily be allocated to Clinton. A couple of years ago, Clinton had offered such a settlement, but the County’s rejection and continuation of legal action resulted in a major retail developer walking away from the deal.
Recent statements by Clinton officials indicate that the city is no longer willing to cut a deal. The five-year moratorium on annexation in the growth plan has expired, and there seems to be little reason for Clinton to deal. After years of litigation, who could blame them?
The News Sentinel reports on views from lawyers on both sides:
Yeager on Monday argued that Clinton couldn’t have it both ways; that the city can’t seek annexation both by growth plan changes and by a referendum.
“There’s no pressing need for a referendum before Clinton votes on growth plan amendments,” Yeager said.
Clinton’s attorney, Dick Jessee, countered by saying the urban growth plan’s five-year moratorium on annexation by referendum has ended, and Clinton can legally follow that route.
The interesting part of the story, however, is found in Commissioner David Bolling’s blog:
A motion was made to file the injunction, it tied and thus failed, and I actually thought that progress had won the day. That was, of course, before Doug Haun realized that he was confused and had voted wrong in his opposition to the injunction. Now, I respect Commissioner Haun, and normally would have believed that someone could honestly vote wrong by mistake. However, when I see Rex Lynch point at someone across the room and say “I need to see you outside”, which he did to Doug, and then see Doug come back in moments later wanting to change his vote, I don’t see a simple mistake, I see a shady political maneuver.
Sigh. Three and a half more years, unless something really interesting happens in between.
How much more might we accomplish if the County actually worked with the cities for growth, rather than posturing on turf?