Majority Rules
This week we said a fond farewell to 2014 and ushered in a brand new year. While last year was riddled with the excitement that comes with an election year, I expect that 2015 will have some of its’ own moments to offer. Straight out of the box, the County Commission will be faced with deciding on a bond issuance and I fully expect that issue to be rather divisive. Some Commissioners are willing to go to bonds for the funding of Building 8 and the remaining funding for the Jefferson County High School renovation that was originally intended to come from County fund balance ($5million). Clump those two together and the amount of new bonds would come in around another $8 million dollars. I look forward to seeing what position new Jefferson County Finance Director Potts will take on the issue. Though he really only takes office this week, I expect that he is planning to hit the ground running and, I hope that he comes to his first Commission Work Session later this month with solid information and an opinion on this bond issue.
The last act of 2014 for the County Commission and the last major act for the School Board in 2014 was the funding of Building 8. While the proposed numbers passed relatively easily through the School Board, the County Commission had a little tougher road to a decision. In the end, they did agree to fund the requested amount for Building 8, with the amendment that, among other considerations, the Commission would appoint an Oversight Committee for the project that would employ a Quality Control Advisor to report directly to the County Commission and the School Board. Interestingly, the School Board did not appear to be opposed to a third party that would be charged with protecting the interest of the County Commission, School Board and, ultimately, the tax payers. However, some of the Commission were vocally opposed to the amendment, which was offered by Commissioner Seal and 2nd by Commissioner Scarlett. A couple of the seven opposing Commissioners went so far as to call out those that supported the amendment, accusing them of continuing the team voting that was so prevalent in the former Commission. I have to say that I just don’t see it. While it is true that six of the Commissioners- Sheets, Beeler, Solomon, Baxley, Turner and Musick-often vote in a like manner (and did so in opposition of the amendment), this time they were joined by Commissioner Tucker. Additionally, new the amendment found favor with every newly seated Commissioner, which, in my opinion, speaks volumes. In fairness, I don’t believe that the six Commissioners (Tucker voted in favor of the motion as amended) that voted against the amendment were opposed to funding Building 8 and a few said as much in the meeting.
Commissioner Tucker also offered an amendment that lowered the cap on the bond to be issued to fund the project from up to $3 million dollars to the requested funding amount of $2,763,754 plus a little over 2% for bond issuance for a total of $2,825,000. Commissioner Bales 2nd the motion and it passed with almost the same dissenting votes as the Seal/Scarlett amendment, save Tucker and Sheets. Commissioner Tucker’s contention was that by leaving the funding amount open up to $3 million (approximately $175,000 more than needed) it could burden the tax payers with an additional penny on the tax rate that was not even requested by the School Board. Eventually the motion to fund the project, with both amendments, passed 13-6 with Commissioners Sheets, Beeler, Solomon, Turner, Musick and Baxley in opposition.
The truth is that like minded Commissioners will have a similar voting pattern. However, I find it difficult to believe that either of the amendments offered were enough to derail any Commissioner from supporting the renovation and repair of Building 8. Commissioner Turner made several objections to the motion as amended, stating that the cost of the Quality Control Advisor was not identified. Commissioner Gaut, a career contractor and former Building Inspector, had advised Commissioner McGraw, when he inquired to the cost, that the industry standard for a project the size and length of Building 8 would be around $30,000.
When Commissioner Scarlett 2nd Seal’s amendment to, among other things, hire an objective 3rd party for project oversight he pointed out that there were problems at other school building sites and that this was an opportunity to address the questions that some members of the Commission, as well as the public, have regarding the quality and scope of work. For what it is worth, my opinion is this- there have been quality issues and, while I believe that the majority of the tax payers are in favor of the Building 8 project, the trust simply it not there. If $30,000 is the cost of a little assurance that everybody is getting their money’s worth and it is only 1.06% of the entire Building 8 project, I say that it is money well spent.
I suspect that the funding of Building 8 is not a dead issue just yet and will be surprised if the Seal/Scarlett amendment and the Tucker/Bales amendment are not a topic of discussion at the next Work Session. If it were me, and I was a proponent of funding, not only the repair but extensive renovations, of Building 8, I would consider the passage of the funding to be a late 2014 Christmas gift-especially considering how many on the Commission, and in the general public, feel about the recent school building plans. Any way, the School Board and Director of Schools Edmonds seemed pleased with the outcome. Thirteen of the nineteen County Commissioners present for the meeting seemed pleased with the outcome and, as is the case with this Commission (and the one before it) majority rules.
