On September 22, the Knox County Commission met for their regularly scheduled September session. While the session was open to the public and is available online by clicking here, the minutes of the meeting will not be made available until 60 days after the date of the meeting.
We, at KCCRTN, believe that the public should be aware of what goes on in these meetings. We understand many people do not have the time to attend or listen to these meetings in their entirety and would prefer to skim over the meeting minutes.
We believe that 60 days is an inordinately long time to wait to be able to read what happened at the meeting, so we have chosen to post lightly edited transcripts of the meeting.
The procedure we used was to download the meeting into Microsoft Word for transcription. We listened to the recording, making corrections and then entered speaker designations and approximate time stamps. We did clean the transcript up a little but made very few changes. Spelling of names was done by Microsoft Word. We corrected misspellings that we were aware of.
General Information
We are purposefully avoiding posting any comments about this meeting. This transcript is for the use of our readers in determining what was done at this meeting. Approximate time stamps are included, and readers are encouraged to make use of those time stamps to listen to sections of the meeting that interest them. Please do not make decisions or post comments to social media until you have listened to the section of the meeting you are interested in. You can listen to this meeting by clicking here and then choosing the “Co Com R 267 250922″.
When notating the results of votes, only the commissioners’ last names are included. This is not meant in any way as disrespectful – it is simply a means of saving time.
In addition, the meeting is divided into sections determined by KCCRTN to make it easier to read. These sections may also include other items besides those noted on the title. Not every word spoken or every action taken by the commission is included. Those decisions were made by the editorial board at KCCRTN.
While every attempt was made to ensure the accuracy of this synopsis, we are human and we are utilizing technology that is not mistake proof so there may be mistakes. If you see one, please contact us at info@kccrtn.org anytime, and we will correct it.
TimeStamps
You may click on these timestamps to be taken directly to the transcript of that section of the meeting.
00:08:43 – Allison Mount – Presentation from Orion on UDO
00:36:17 – Presentation by Ben Mullins for Home Builders Association of Greater Knoxville
01:19:38 Voting begins for Merit System Board
1:37:59 – Vote to replace Commissioner Russell on the Knox County Audit Committee
Meeting Transcript
Gina Oster
Good afternoon.
I called to order the Knox County Commission meeting for Monday, September 22nd, 2025. Madam Clerk, if you will call the roll, please.
Clerk
Commissioner Rawls. Commissioner Garrett. Commissioner Ulster. Commissioner Jackson. Commissioner Russell. Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Lee. Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Fox. Commissioner Jay. Commissioner Frazier. 10 members are present. Thank you.
Gina Oster
And I don’t see any elected officials in the audience. I do see Doctor Rizwood, though. Hello. I will now turn it over to Commissioner Jay for our devotion.
Commissioner Jay
Thank you. Madam Chair. Commissioners, as you all know, as I represent the entirety of Knox County and all 506,000 citizens.
I’ve used my time on Commission over the last seven years and my rotation of the devotional to welcome different denominations, different faiths, different representations of our faith community, which I think is incredibly important to Knox County and giving them an opportunity to come and address us and be part of our meetings. As a way to build some unity across all of our denominations and communities as a whole.
And tonight, I’m very, very proud to welcome former Leadership Knoxville classmate and good friend, President of Knoxville Catholic High School, Dickey Somberak, to join us and offer today’s devotional on behalf of the Catholic Church.
00:02:08 Dickey Somberak
Thank you, Jay. I asked Jay before I LED this group and pray if I could just say a few words, My father was a county commissioner for 12 years and a lot of that was during, uh, me and my siblings, uh, kind of formative years. So, we were often used to, to phone calls late at night about potholes outside of neighborhoods that were of dire importance. So.
I appreciate what you guys do as public servants and know that this isn’t your full-time job.
That’s something you do to just give back to your community. So, thank you for that.
Let us pray.
Almighty and Eternal God, we come before you this day with hearts full of gratitude for the many blessings you have bestowed upon our community and our nation.
We thank you for the gift of public service and for the men and women who labor, often quietly and without recognition, for the good of all. As we gather at the outset of this Commission meeting, we invoke your presence and guidance.
Bestow upon these leaders the wisdom to discern what is just, the courage to act with integrity, and the humility to serve with compassion. May all deliberations undertaken this day be rooted in a spirit of justice, peace and a sincere commitment to the common good.
O Lord, in a particular way, we lift up our prayer for all those who serve in the public sphere, our elected officials, civil servants, educators, and those who hold positions of leadership and trust. We ask you to surround them with your protection, especially in these times of uncertainty and unrest. We pray, too, for the repose of the souls lost in recent tragedies, particularly the victims of the heartbreaking events at Enunciation School in Minnesota and the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, a political advocate..activist in Utah.
Console their families and communities with the peace that only you can give and turn our hearts ever more firmly toward a path of peace and reconciliation. We pray for our country that we may always seek justice with mercy, respond to hate with love, and build peace in our hearts and in our world.
May your divine Providence watch over this Commission, this country and this nation, and may all that is undertaken here today be done for your greater glory in the service of all people. And we ask this as we do all things in Jesus’ name, Amen. Thank you.
Gina Oster
Thank you very much. I’ll now turn it over to Commissioner Jackson for a Pledge of Allegiance
00:04:48 Commissioner Jackson
Ladies and gentlemen, if you’ll please stand, rise and face the flag.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Gina Oster
Thank you. Next is the amendments to the agenda. Do we have any? Anything that needs to be changed from what you guys see, Commissioner Thompson?
00:05:20 Commissioner Thompson
Thank you. Madam Chair. I would just request that if we could, the interview process and voting for BZA and Library and Merit Board be moved a little earlier on so that we don’t keep these folks till the end of the meeting.
Gina Oster
- I believe that is number 20 Let’s see, 24 25. No 25 and 26, sorry. OK. Anything else? All right. Do I have a motion?
Commissioner Jay
Do we have the deferrals and on consents?
Gina Oster
I’m sorry, yeah, we do. I do here to the side additions #27.Deferred October is 28 and 29.
Withdrawals is 32. And then non consent, 20 through 22. 24 through 27.
30-31-33 and 34. Non consent again. 20 through 22, 24 through 27,30,31,33 and 34.
Do you have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Thompson? Do I have a second?
Gina Oster
All right, all in favor, Aye, All opposed. The ayes have it.
I’ll now entertain a motion to approve the Education and General Consent calendars.
Got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Hill, second by Commissioner Frazier. Any discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor, aye, all opposed. The ayes have it.
We have no honorary resolutions.
All right, Madam Clerk, next item please.
Presentation by Orion
Clerk
Item number 18 is a presentation from Orion.
00:07:41 Speaker 6
Good evening commissioners. I was the mayor’s not here today, so I was tasked with introducing them. So, I’m sorry, I know you’ much rather see him than me, but, uh, we do appreciate your time today. Uh, the, uh, I want to encourage you all to, we do have meetings this week coming up, uh, both tomorrow, Tuesday night and Thursday night. Tuesday night we will be in the Ritta community and in the North Shore area as well as Thursday night. We will be in Powell and South Knoxville New Hopewell. So please encourage your constituents to come out and participate in those.
But in in doing so, as we approve the comp plan last year, you know, well the goals of that comp plan we wanted to implement as part of the studio and really make take the vision into reality. And that’s what we’re trying to do today. And our consultants here, Orion, Allison Mount and she will be here to talk about the regulatory audit and the road map in which we get there. So, I’d like to introduce her.
And go from there.
00:08:43 Allison Mount
Good evening, Commissioners, good to see you all again.
I believe you all have in front of you, the presentation that I will step you through. So as it’s coming up on the screen, we’ll go ahead and get started.
As Director Snowden pointed out, uh, wanted to reinforce really quickly why we’re here and what we’re doing? And, and that is ultimately the creation of Knox County’s First Unified Development Ordinance, which was as a reminder, the first policy right out the gate in your comprehensive plan that you adopted a little over a year ago. That comprehensive plan identifies and reiterates the importance of improving the predictability and transparency of the development review process and the creation of a UDO is front and center in that effort.
So you might remember that in, uh, going through the presentation that we gave back in June, we were talking a little bit about why the creation of a unified development ordinance is so important.
The county’s existing regulations are pretty outdated, and the result is that they’re creating some unnecessary barriers to the desired outcomes that the the community has stated they’d like to see as a result of the comprehensive plan. That alignment is really critically important, and you’ll hear us reiterate how this effort is going to implement the intended goals, policies, and actions identified in that plan.
Currently, there’s a significant amount of inconsistency that we’ve identified in our review of the county’s existing regulations, which can cause confusion and create confusion with users as well as with the staff administering the regulations. And that confusion can ultimately result in lack of predictability and extended procedural time frames.
So this effort is really an opportunity for us to implement the community’s vision that they’ve stated through the comprehensive plan and really align that vision with the outcomes that the county would like to see.
So just for everyone in the room, and as a reminder, that unified development ordinance is in planning best practice in modern practice of managing land use and development through a single document. So, in Knox County’s case, we’re taking the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations, the stormwater regulations, building codes, Fire Protection and prevention standards, and the roads, bridges, traffic and vehicles regulations.
Combining over 800 pages of existing regulations into one unified ordinance that consolidates, aligns, and brings together those pieces and parts and reduces redundancy, improves efficiency, and results in a better outcome for the for both the development community, Knox County residents and the county as a whole.
So a quick recap.
Since our time with you all back in June.
Where we engaged with staff, community and technical committee members and the Chamber.
The following that trip we launched a user survey that engaged those groups of individuals as well as elected officials as yourself, many of you participated in that. We we thank you very much for your input. We analyzed those results as we were also going through a very comprehensive line by line assessment of the counties regulation that will be combined into this unified development.
We’ve drafted an audit report that we’ve been reviewing with staff and the recommendations of which will be the focus of our workshops with the community over the course of this week.
So that audit process that I’ve just described, I wanted to highlight what we heard from those stakeholders that we engaged. The user survey netted us close to 100 responses, which is a great in terms of those individuals we were really targeting based on their experience working with these regulations.
And that combined with our conversations held on the ground in June, really highlighted for us that the focus for this audit and the update of the regulations and creations of the UDO was reiterating that need for predictability while also allowing for flexibility to create unique development outcomes, good development outcomes. There’s a clear desire for a greater mix of housing.
Obviously, you want to modernize infrastructure and design standards to better align with best practice that we’re seeing in other communities in Tennessee and beyond.
There was a desire for balancing of community character with the need for development. You’re growing and development is not a bad thing. Certainly we want the character that exists within Knox County to be protected and maintained as you’re accepting and growing more houses and jobs.
And ultimately there was a desire across the board from those individuals being engaged to really emphasize alignment with an implementation of the comprehensive plan.
So I want to highlight a few areas in our review and based on that feedback that we identified from the plan where the existing regulations are misaligned because that really is our focus, not just in the creation of the UDL and the benefit that that provides, but also in updating the regulations so they once again reinforce the intended goals and outcomes from the plan.
We know upon our review and and working with the county so far that the plan promotes mixed-use and walkable development in place types where it’s appropriate.
Again, encourages a mix of housing. There’s an emphasis on protection of natural and cultural resources. There’s a desire for innovative, more innovative development and subdivision strategies, the coordination of infrastructure as a result and to serve development and improvements to transportation networks to increase safety, efficiency and connectivity throughout the county.
00:15:38 Allison Mount
So I’m going to step you through some of the misalignment we found starting with the place type and zoning district relationship.
Currently, the zoning districts don’t directly align with the place types that were adopted as part of the plan, and so there’s great opportunity through the Unified Development Ordinance process to consider consolidating districts that overlap.
Updating existing districts to better reflect best practice and those standards and uses incorporated within as well as the creation, the potential creation of new districts to reflect some of those place types that the county adopted and that previously weren’t being used in the future land use vocabulary of the county.
I mentioned infrastructure standards and the misalignment in the existing plan policies and actions and existing regulations.
By and large, the standards today are pretty outdated, uh, particularly when it comes to street design, street and road design, where the county has henceforth taken uhh a one size fits all approach to that infrastructure development and coordination that, uh, the comprehensive plan has identified as as needing to evolve.
There’s pretty excessive parking requirements that we’re learning from other communities are are not really a best practice and we can do a little bit better in terms of the ordinance requirements and there’s some pretty inflexible standards and and setbacks when it comes to the regulations.
The example up on the screen is just one of many when it comes to site design requirements that are misaligned with the outcomes identified in the comprehensive Plan. So in this example, the RB General Residential Zone has some pretty explicit height regulations that identify that houses and duplexes are capped at a maximum of 36 feet, but then any other main building has an unlimited height restriction. So right there. I mean it doesn’t really make any sense.
There’s no reason for why we need to restrict the height of houses and and duplexes and not anything else that’s permitted in that zone. And so this is just one of many site design standards that we identified in our review don’t facilitate the outcomes that are intended through those place types.
As we’ve walked through the regulations, something that is not unique to Knox County and the other communities we’ve worked with is the way that uses are set forth in the zoning district. Currently, each district provides a long list of the uses that are permitted or permitted on review. And so what we’ve done is taken all of those uses, which when you pull them out of each unique zoning district total 385 distinct uses that are currently regulated in Knox County, many of which are duplicative, redundant, are slightly unique, or go into unnecessary detail when the impact of the use is pretty universal so in terms of improvement, as part of this process, we’ll be looking to refine, consolidate and update those uses to better reflect and support development that’s permitted by right and development that reflects current activities within Knox County.
As we’ve heard from you all as well as the groups engaged in June and the reading of the comprehensive plan, natural resources and character within the county is important. That’s stated explicitly throughout the pages of the plan. And yet the existing regulations don’t afford much protection when it comes to natural resources and cultural resources in the county. And so that’s certainly a misalignment with plan goals, stated goals, and adopted goals.
One of which is, you know, just observing the topography around us in the development practices and requirements don’t facilitate or allow or support development that’s in tune and aligned with your topography. I mean, you are a very hilly environment. I come from the mountains, so I can appreciate that. And we want to accommodate and provide for opportunity to grow, but in a way that continues to respect the natural topography of the county and protect some of those natural resources within it.
00:20:45 Allison Mount
And so finally, we talked a lot in June about the administrative processes and procedures that form the backbone of any ordinance or regulations. I may have mentioned in my last conversation with you that we could update all of the regulation, we could write the best code in the world and if the processes are still not improved then it doesn’t matter how good the content is because the process and content are equally important.
So currently we’ve found that the counties relying a little bit too much on negotiation as opposed to by right development and looking at where and when that’s appropriate and allowing that to occur in a more streamlined way while still again protecting the things that we care about and expecting the outcomes that we want to see.
Because of that overreliance on negotiation, it has a tendency to create inconsistent outcomes and adds to the administrative burden just in terms of that review process and approval.
It’s a little hard to illustrate that conceptually on the screen, but one of the the very basic things that we look at when we look to update code or created a unified development ordinance of this nature are those redundancies and conflicts. And so the example you see is just a very simple one where in looking at how we’re defining terms that are used between these different types of regulations, pulling terminology and definitions all in one location and defining, you know, rather than having there be two terms as this has for right of way between the subdivision regulations and the traffic and vehicles chapter, we’re going to create one unified definition so there’s not a conflict between the two that an applicant or staff has to wade through and and navigate.
22:46 – Allison Mount
So the audit report that will be released in short order really seeks to organize the recommendations to further the community’s understanding of how a recommendation accomplishes the actions that are supporting the policy that are in alignment with the goals of the comp plan. So, our intent was for you to be able to read this report and say these recommendations are what further our ability to align with the goals and accomplish.. further the policy and accomplish the action that the plan sets up.
00:23:38 Allison Mount
As I mentioned, our engagement this week, we’ll be looking at, getting feedback from the community at large. We have 4 open house events, that director Snowden mentioned, occurring tomorrow evening and Thursday evening. In between that, we will be meeting with our technical and community advisor,
Constituents were also. Speaking with you this evening and we have a workshop that we’ll be doing on Thursday morning as well and we’ll dive a little bit deeper into those recommendations and be asking for your feedback as well.
We have a virtual public workshop that will be held on Thursday over lunch for anyone who’s not able to attend the public workshops in person.
And we are also going to have all of the materials presented at the workshops available online with an interactive feature for the public to provide us input on those recommendations.
So as far as next steps, I mentioned our time on Thursday will be spent walking through those recommendations in greater detail and interacting with you. We’ll be looking to incorporate the feedback we see we received through this week and via the website to inform our next steps, which are nine months of of drafting of this unified development ordinance. And again, I didn’t include the time frame from the last presentation, but we are looking to have that draft next spring and begin the adoption process next summer.
So with that I am happy to take any questions you have for me.
But appreciate your time this evening.
00:25:23 Gina Oster
Thank you so much, uh, Commissioner Fox.
00:25:26 Commissioner Fox
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just curious, do you have an anticipation of how many pages you expect this unified document to be for replacing 800 pages but.
Allison Mount
But I, I don’t have a ballpark for you. I probably will have a better feel for that in another three months or so, certainly less. But I would also, you know, we, we’ve had these conversations in other communities that we’ve worked in. The expectation is in the streamlining, we’re winnowing down page numbers. But our goal here is to also illustrate a lot of the regulations and concepts so they’re easier to digest and understand to the user. And when you add illustrations and tables you know that there’s a tradeoff there, so I wouldn’t focus so much on the page number, but how the information is conveyed?
Commissioner Fox
OK, thank you. And I also have another question, how, how did you gauge whether parking requirements were excessive or not? Because I, I mean, I, I think first of all you have a lot of different particular zones and so you have that issue of is it is excessive in this zone or this other zone. But then, just if you could give some more. If you can flesh that out some more please.
Allison Mount
Yeah, absolutely. Well, first and foremost, I think you’ll recall we did a pretty lengthy tour at span three days. We went all over the the county. So part of that gauge was just our own observation as a team at different points in time at different locations.
There was a lot of parking that looked underutilized. That coupled with our valuation of the existing parking requirements, they haven’t been updated in some time and so they’re not really reflective of, you know, the ITE best practices or standards that we would see in other comparably sized communities.
The other thing that we heard from our engagement with the technical advisory and community advisory committee members was that sometimes the parking requirements are, they feel like they’re creating a barrier to just site design and development and having to afford so much space to X number of parking spaces results in some trade-offs that were, you know, maybe not you viewed as as undesirable, so
Commissioner Fox
OK, thank you.
00:27:59 Gina Oster
Commissioner Jay.
Commissioner Jay
Thank you, Madam Chair, when this process is done, you you have in here.
A nine month drafting process to complete the draft company with this may be a question either for our internal team or for you. Like what is the process in which it will come to this Commission? Will it come as one document as an up or down or it will come as something that is endlessly amended by 11 members with their own particular interests, or you know discussion items. I mean, you know, what is the final voting process and the adoption process when it comes to.
00:28:38 Allison Mount
Us yeah you know, I think that’s something that we haven’t talked about yet and will be part of our conversation about what that drafting process looks like. My preference working in communities would be to bring you a complete draft document. I think it’s really important for you to understand how all the pieces relate to one another in terms of your review and evaluation. How it actually gets adopted would be something that I think we’ll talk with staff about and come up with the best game plan so that it doesn’t get, you know, mired down and.
00:29:13 Commissioner Jay
Yeah. I, I, I think it’s going to be very important to come and give us have a clear path because it’s, it’s been the trend that years and years and years of work go into something. And even though everybody might have some involvement with the process at the 0 hour at the last meeting, a lot of stuff gets amended.
And and it’s, you know, we’ve gone through a whole process and so I just, I think it’s really important to make sure we understand where does this Commission have input, where does the public have input and what is the process of like so somebody in the public doesn’t get disenfranchised that they went through the whole process but it got changed at the very last minute or some commissioner may you know say, well wait, I didn’t get a chance to go to here. How do I get my say into this is a really big, you know, we went through this with the land comprehension, you know, the comprehensive growth plan.
00:30:04 Mandy Benedict
So hi, Mandy Benedict Mayor’s office we did learn a lot of lessons with the comprehensive plan and so we worked it into the scope of work with the UDO to have a public input session and then have review with Planning Commission and County Commission and then start the adoption process from there. So we’ll have a draft time to get everybody’s input together and then we’ll start the adoption process after that.
Commissioner Jay
- Thank you very much.
Gina Oster
Commissioner Jackson.
Commissioner Jackson
Thank you. Madam Chair, as you know, we have an affordability crisis with many homes here in Knox County. One of the, you know, things that is always difficult for us on Commission and it’s difficult for developers that I hear over and over is how do we have clarity? How does this UDO provide clarity to developers and provide clarity to the community and provide clarity to the Commission on, you know, how do we, you know, how, how do we structure this to where?
Uh, we understand what is, what is allowed and how do we make housing more affordable. And then the second thing, part of my question is how do we also protect our green spaces and our hillsides and during in the rural conservation areas, you know, is there an ability to make larger lots, a requirement like one per five acres as an example?
00:31:39 Allison Mount
To answer your question about affordability, I think there are many, many practices that we can employ in the update to the zoning regulations, in particular as part of that component of of the UDO. What we heard and what we’ve experienced through the audit process so far is that that predictability in terms of allowable uses and allowable density has been a point has been an issue because, as you mentioned, when the expectation isn’t clear, that doesn’t net the best results or best feelings, whether you’re the developer or a member of the community.
And that process is negotiated. The density allowed or the issues allowed is a big question mark until you get to the end of of the road. So I would. And we don’t have anything set out yet, but we’re the recommendations provide recommended and a recommended approach, not.
What I’m trying to say is we haven’t set a number or said you need to change this standard, uh, or this density to that yet, but we will be having those conversations through the drafting of this document. And I think what will be important to consider as the adopting body is where we want to..where we decide to set that very clear expectation that if you’re in an RB district the anticipated density is X, the uses that are permitted and permitted by right are Y, and the standards to which you will be held are Z and obviously there’s, there’s room for deviation in certain circumstances. We always want to, that’s where that flexibility balance comes in.
But I think the more we can move towards clarity for the applicant and the community on the front end of what the outcome will be in working with developers on the other side of the table.
A lot of the cost that’s passed down to homeowners comes from the amount of time it takes to move through development and permitting review and the carrying costs that come with land and through the development process.
So I think improving clarity.. Improving the timeliness of that negotiation or review process.
And that’s you some of those results on the back end. But the caveat that obviously we can’t control the market, but to your second point. I think similarly there are..there are opportunities to improve upon and introduce clustering provisions, incentives that would make it more desirable for a developer to look at a piece of land and be supported in kind of reducing the development footprint or having more large lot standards in place where appropriate to conserve the natural characteristics, again building to the topographic constraints reducing the, you know, need to just clear a site or level a site to make it easier to move through the development process would be things we’d look at.
Gina Oster
Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. We appreciate all the hard work that’s going into this. We know it’s a lot. So thank you. We appreciate the presentation. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you. Next item.
Home Builders Association of Greater Knoxville
Clerk
Next item is presentation by Home Builders Association of Greater Knoxville.
00:36:17 – Ben Mullins
Good evening. I’m Ben Mullins, 550 W Main St. I don’t know if that’s required to be said today, but I’m so used to saying that I don’t know how to stand up here and not say that. I’ve been retained by the Home builders Greater Home Builders Association of Knoxville to present this just kind of brief overview of a report that I believe you all have that looked at the the economic impacts of growth and and development, particularly the using a model to look at what the impact is for 100 homes built in Knoxville. Just a little bit of background information. The home builder association is a nonprofit trade association has been established in 1951. It’s made-up over 500 companies engaged in various service industries for home construction and development and this is in this area over these 500 members, 295 are based right here in Knox County and include over 150 Knox County home builders.
First slide there you’ll see the the Home Builders Association’s greater territory includes multiple counties, not just Knox County, including Union, Granger, Blount, Loudon, Anderson, Campbell, Roan and Morgan counties.
Next slide please.
Since 1996, the National Association of Home Builders have created this economic model to kind of track the economic benefits of home building, and they’ve used this model to generate reports all across the country for the last 30 years.
Next slide, please.
This is a comprehensive nature of the model, but what we wanted to do here is look at local benefits and just in the Knox County area. And so the there is a larger report of the greater areas for all the counties that we identified. But there’s also and what this report is focusing on is just here in Knox County what that estimated economic impact would be for 100 homes built in 2025.
But next slide.
This is kind of a, just a high level summary. This looks at not only, the first year impacts during the construction and development phase, but then also annualized impacts moving forward for the, the next 15 years. And not only just a direct comparison as to how much money is generated in tax revenue, etcetera, versus, the infrastructure requirements for the homes, but also multiplier effects on income generated in jobs generated from the construction industry in and of itself, which is sometimes a factor that’s hard to capture and often overlooked.
And this model does try to to look at that and we’ll talk about that in a lot more detail here in a moment. Just high level summary, one of your impacts includes $37.1 million in local income, $4.2 million in taxes and other revenue and 397 local jobs and and that’s kind of pared down to a 100 home model with reoccurring impacts, you’re looking at additional 4.8 million in in local income, 1.6 million in taxes and 66 jobs. And we can talk about the difference. Of course when you’re building and you’re actually doing the development in year 1, there’s a lot more involvement, a lot more contractors involved, but after that the the job generation does reduce to 66 jobs and we can talk about that more later as we need to
next slide please.
This is just a slide to to kind of summarize the, the methodology. I’ll tell you, I’m not a mathematician, I’m not an economist. Several years ago I minored in economics and I couldn’t tell you much more about it than that. Now the actual methodology itself is laid out in excruciating detail in the report if you want to to look at that more.
I can’t explain the methodology for you. So if you have questions, want to ask me to do math here at the podium, please, please don’t. But basically it’s a three phase analysis. Phase one and two are one-time effects and Phase 3 is an ongoing annual effect.
Next slide.
There it talks about phase one there. Jobs, wages and local taxes includes your permitting, your utility connection, your impact fees that are generated from the actual development, construction, sale of the home.
Next slide
There we have phase two and phase three. Just kind of briefly summarize, Phase 2 is a ripple effect and Phase 3 is the annual ongoing effect. Phase 2 are the wages and profits for local residents earned during the construction period, which are then spent back into at least a portion of it’s captured back into the local economy, which produces other jobs and services that aren’t necessarily directly related to the construction industry. And then Phase 3 is, you know, ongoing effects of that after the homes have been built, developed and occupied.
Next slide please.
This is just talking more about the phase one in the construction. We’re looking at the sales price of the home, the contribution of the raw land costs, permitting, zoning, utility connections, the costs of that taxes generated during this period and then the wages and salaries generated by jobs supported by this initial construction phase. And This is why you know the the property is being entitled and while it is being constructed.
Next slide.
This is just a very high level summary of Phase 1. You know the value of construction plus the services provided at the closing permit hookup impact fees, we don’t have impact fees here but just the permitting phase.
Than the how that then flows that money and flows into the local economy and then also local income and taxes.
Next slide please.
And this is a table and the showing on 100 year, 100 hundred year 100 homes, kind of what that local income would look like for those 100 homes. And they’re taking actual numbers and then using a model just to kind of look at it as as at 100 year slice. And so it makes for numbers that are easier to to manage and and deal with and discuss.
Next slide.
This is the revenue generated in business property taxes general sales tax, excise taxes, uh, income taxes, et cetera. For the, for 100 homes, uh, during the construction phase, you’re looking at total general revenue about $1.9 million.
Next slide, please.
Phase two. This is the construction ripple. If you earn dollars in Knox County, then you’re going to spend some of it in Knox County. For example, a lawyer earns his fee and coming to the County Commission and, and asking for a property to be rezoned. Or, you know, he may spend some of that money that he earns in his fee on dance lessons for his daughter or buying a a motorcycle or something like that. That produces income into the county that’s not directly related to the construction or the taxes itself.
Then dance teachers or motorcycle dealers. They will then take a portion of that money and spend in the local economy and that ripple effect, that money multiplier effect is often hard to capture. And what this model I think particularly focuses on on on how to capture that you’re also bringing, you know, as we.
44:23 Let’s go to the next slide.
This is just again a high level summary of phase two, local income and taxes from phase one, spending on locally produced goods and services flows into the the model for the local economy and local income and taxes and how that then kind of circulates back as those dollars are then shared with other industries and spent in Knox County.
Next slide, please.
And this is as before a chart showing the induced effect of spending income and and and tax revenue from phase one in the in the phase two phase.
Next slide.
Again, this local government general revenue from this. So during this phase you’re looking at an annualized total revenue of $2.2 million into the government because of taxes and other fees that are generated from this
next slide.
Phase 3 is the ongoing impact. You’re looking at the, the longer term impacts, or the what they call successive ripples and economic activity. And this is where the math really takes over with assumptions on the impact of occupied homes on revenue generated by their occupation versus the ongoing impact of the homes on the local infrastructure itself.
Next slide.
High level visualization. Income of occupants in new housing, increased property taxes and spending on locally produced goods and services.
Through this local model and then how it circulates back as people continue to spend money as they live and operate and, and, and just become citizens of Knox County.
Next slide.
This is your kind of high level chart showing, you know, the income generated over, you know, years once the homes are built and occupied and you see you know the number of jobs generated then from the initial construction and that goes down to about 66 number is talking about, but it does 100 homes. You will create new jobs in Knox County as more people are working here and more people are spending more money in here.
Next slide.
Local government generation local government general revenue by type. This shows what’s generated as ongoing effect of, of new homes being occupied occur here.
I spent a lot of time talking about income generation. Let’s talk about costs compared to revenue next slide.
When you’re talking about the costs compared to revenue in the first year, again, this is 100 single family homes built in Knox County is about $5,000,000 in tax and other revenue for local government, about 329,000 current expenditures to provide public services to the net new households at current levels. This isn’t talking about improving the infrastructure, just maintaining what is there. We all know infrastructure does need to be improved and there are expenses with that, but to maintain the current level of services, that’s where this figure comes into into play and then $2.2 million in capital investments for new structures and equipment. This is, you know, the ongoing expenses that the government has to incur to maintain and service these these new residents and these new homes.
Next slide.
Typical first year after phase one, you’re talking about 1.6 million in taxes and $658,000 in local government expenditures.
The difference between government revenue and current expenditures like you know that’s defined as your operating surplus. In this case the operating surplus generated in the first year covers the cost of the investment in in services to maintain again the current level. And over 15 years the this model projects 100 new homes will generate a cumulative of 26.7 million in revenue compared to 11.9 million in in costs. Next slide.
That’s the figure, the graph that they have kind of illustrating that on, on if you’re more visually oriented, you know what that looks like over 15 year and there’s an operating surplus of 14.8 million versus cumulative revenue versus cumulative costs.
Next slide.
This is the same information kind of annualized or summarized in in a text form.
I have copies of the report if anybody has it. But in conclusion, based upon this model which the National Home Builders Association been using for over 30 years, the home building is a self-sustaining industry and government and the local governments do not have to operate in the red, do not have to go in debt to provide current services to those new homes that are coming in. Now, of course, this is nuanced. This is looking at single family homes we’re not looking at you know different types of construction. You know she doesn’t look at multi family. It doesn’t look at other housing types.
It also it takes all of the the homes that are built and looks at the numbers and then condenses that down to what it looks like for 100 homes. We know there’s different impacts based on where the homes are built, whether it’s, you know, in the rural areas where you have to stretch out the infrastructure. This is looking at all of that and then kind of kind of distilling it down into the data, looking at all the impacts based on the information we have to date.
So I’m happy to answer any questions but you know, and I have copies of important copies of the PowerPoint presentation if anybody would like to have it.
00:49:56 Gina Oster
Thank you, Mr. Mullins. Uh, Commissioner Frazier.
Commissioner Frazier
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Mullins. I had asked the Home Builders Association of Greater Knoxville to come and just give us some highlights of that report that we received. It’s probably been here in two or three months ago, because it was very lengthy and very detailed. And I want to thank Mr. Mullins for representing them and providing us some of the highlights. I also wanted to thank you for bringing it down to the Knox County level because in reading the report, one of the observations for me was that it included a regional area. And so I had some concerns going into that report thinking, you know, is this, is this accurately depicting what we are experiencing here in Knox County and another thing that just an observation was that the report is based on expenditures that counties report every five years to the Census Bureau correct?
Mr. Mullins
That’s correct
Commissioner Frazier
OK and that that would assume that counties are actually reporting expenses and the number of units accurately which sometimes we don’t really know you all just get the information as it’s reported to the census and then included in this report. And also it it kind of relies on counties are actually expending sufficient funds.
So for example, we know we have numerous road improvement needs in Knox County and that have significant price tags and we’re on maybe a 90 year paving cycle. But the report we are probably providing smaller numbers based on our paving budget, so it’s not identifying the greater needs. So it uses a smaller number when actually our needs are greater with additional expenses to to maintain those infrastructure, supportive infrastructure. It also rolls up the expenses for the entire metropolitan statistical area. But I was really, I’m so happy that you did it at the Knox County level. Does the report also measure depreciation and deferred maintenance?
Mr. Mullins
I believe it does.
I would refer back to the report on that, but I do believe that it does try to factor that in as well.
Commissioner Frazier
And then also one thing that I observed is, is that utilities for example as part of the infrastructure costs like KUB has to modernize its sewer system. It’s hitting 100 year mark. And my only observation and a little bit of concern was that report doesn’t capture those hidden infrastructure debt that we may be facing so.
And if you could just kind of look into that for me and then get back to me. But again, thank you so much for highlighting this because again, it was a very lengthy report. I’m really glad that that the Home Builders Association of Greater Knoxville, they put out this report. I think it’s got some helpful information. It gives us a good kind of broad view of the landscape of home building in the regional area. And so thank you, Mr. Mullen, for representing them and being here tonight.
00:52:51 Gina Oster
Thank you, Commissioner Lee.
Commissioner Lee
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Frazier, I believe kind of touched. I have a few questions kind of touched on. So this report, even though it’s got 9 counties highlighted, you’re saying this report is just for Knox County?
Mr. Mullins
There is a larger report for the 9 counties and then at Commissioner Frazier’s request, they went back and generated a report just for Knox County and that’s what I attempted to and summarize here tonight.
Commissioner Lee
And who? Who? Who was the one who actually did this. Who compiled this report?
Mr. Mullins
This report is done by, you know, the, the National Association of Home Builders based upon their model that they generated back in 1996, that they, they take this model and they take the local data from jurisdictions across the county and then come up with, with this, this information. So it’s, it’s, it’s been done for 30 years, over 800 jurisdictions. It’s been well tested and, and, and vetted. Like any model, it you know there’s limitations to it and some of the things that Commissioner Frazier brought up. Be happy to look into that further and we can talk about that.
And you’re right, it does report we’re dependent upon the accuracy of the information that is is provided. If counties aren’t spending money then that those numbers aren’t going to find its way in into this report. But I think a high level if you look at what the county is spending versus the income generated, there is some margin there where there’s room for, you know there to be additional spending to help support and improve the infrastructure and the home building itself still be self-sustaining.
Commissioner Lee
And and one of the questions I would like to see if we could find out if it could be part of this report is how many units have been approved there
Mr. Mullins
Is not not the approval completed. This looks at the homes after they’re being built, not homes that that are in the in the pipeline. These you’re taking the information based upon the homes that are built. So we’re not looking at you know what has been approved or what the inventory is coming down the pike.
Commissioner Lee
So that would but would you agree with me that that would make these numbers a lot different if we had that in the equation, if we had what’s been approved? You know, there’s 200 units out there that haven’t been completed, but they’ve already been approved. They’re just got to get done, like physically get done. That’s going to skew the numbers
Mr. Mullins
No. I think the way the model works and then there’s reason they kind of pare it down, taking all the data and then look at it on a 100 home Slice is that if you’re looking at 200 homes, you would double the cost impact and you would double.
You know, it’s probably not exactly math, like I said, don’t ask me to do math in the podium, but that model would then be able to kind of function in what that would look like and the numbers would be different, but the margins would be roughly the same.
Commissioner Lee
I mean I I’m not following how they would be the same.
Mr. Mullins
The margin would be roughly the same. If you’re looking at 100 homes, but you actually build 150, then you would, you know, you multiply this, you know these numbers. Both the cost generated and, and the infrastructure by, you know, 50% if you’re doing half of that, you would reduce it.
But the model is, is meant to kind of look forward as to what the impact is for 100 homes. So if you’re doing more than 100, you would apply that actual number to the costs, it’s you know, it’s, it’s like a math formula depends on the numbers you put in. If you know these numbers are based on 100 homes built, if it’s 200, it would be roughly double that.
Commissioner Lee
- Thank you. That’s all I have.
Commissioner Oster
Thank you, Commissioner Rawls.
Commissioner Rawls
Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Mullins, just walk me through B. The formula B not B. I mean not formula. I’m sorry table B.
Go back to the government general revenue by type.
Mr. Mullins
Uh, OK. So that that is for the phase, I believe that’s for the phase three local government general revenue by type. And so that’s for the long term impact, you know is, is the homes are occupied and the the.
Commissioner Rawls
Nope, not that one above. Keep going, keep going. It’s the one that has like educational charges at 53,000 transportation there.
Skip uh.
Is that it?
It doesn’t have a.
Mr. Mullins
There’s different it’s a little confusing. Each one of these are based on the the the three phases. So which phase are we we want to look at?
Commissioner Rawls
Well, the question is it, it has taxes, but then it has general revenue, general revenues like 1.9. Taxes at half a million. Yeah, that’s it.
The charges versus the revenue taxes.
Help me understand that a little bit more.
If you can. If you can’t, don’t worry about it.
Mr. Mullins
It’s I’m trying to look at where you’re talking about the the charges versus the general revenue.
Commissioner Rawls
Yeah.
Mr. Mullins
Well, the there’s total taxes 457 and then you know the, the total general revenue.
Commissioner Rawls
There’s those educational charges, transportation charges, hospital charge. Those aren’t revenue. Those are like so.
Mr. Mullins
I think and and I believe I’ll have to go back and look at exactly how that’s defined by the, the report itself. But I think those are, those are money. That’s money that that’s being spent, you know, into the into the system. That help function for governmental quasi governmental functions you know that’s what they actually are paying into you know not not all of that you know if education charges you know the people the…Yeah, but we still pay M fees for for education. We still, you know, put money into the the system to support our own children even though they go to the public schools. So I think that’s what that those numbers are attempting to capture.
Commissioner Rawls
And would this be the 100 or would this be extrapolated out?
Mr. Mullins
This would be on the 100 homes.
And I’m happy to look at that in more detail and get you more information if you want.
Commissioner Rawls
Yeah. Please do. Thank you.
Commissioner Oster
Thank you, Commissioner Fox.
01:00:09 Commissioner Fox
Thank you, Madam Chair, I would like a copy of the greater report.
But just to follow up on Commissioner Lee’s question. These statistics are calculated after the home has been completed. Is it that what I was hearing?
Mr. Mullins
There’s 3 phases, there’s during the development construction phases 1 and 2 are you know, it’s kind of the development phase and while the home is being constructed but before occupied and then phase three of the ongoing impacts after the the home has been completed and and occupied.
Commissioner Fox
- Looking at the cost compared to revenue. Slide. Which is on page 23. And page 24.
Uh, is it another little blurb that so? Which phase? Does this cover all three phases?
Mr. Mullins
That would be yes, that starts again you’re looking at year one and the the the delta between the revenue and the cost for year one then moving forward. So this would capture all three phases
Commissioner Fox
OK and I’m just throwing this up there. I I always heard that there is a latency between. development and and revenue actually beginning to be received when it comes to residential development, you know. County had…Counties had have to effectively subsidized the future or the development in a sense of a of a subdivision and you know hope to capture those costs down the road like for instance, you know investing in road development or utility infrastructure and things like that where there’s actually no property tax being received. At that time and then only, you know, once the subdivision actually begins being populated is does revenue being received and you know catching up with the investment made in the development by the county, which of course then effectively means that you have county residents that are subsidizing you know an incoming population is.
Do you have…I mean are there like footnotes or something to show where this information is coming from?
Mr. Mullins
The report goes into a lot more detail, but if you’re just looking at, you know, county expenditures versus property tax, you’re absolutely correct. Commissioner Fox. What this report attempts to also do is capture in the impact and revenue generated for the construction workers that are coming in and spending money in the county.
You know, the permitting fees and the other things that are being paid. Again, the lawyer, you know, spending money on, on, on his family in the, in the county after he gets a fee for helping get it rezoned. Those things don’t directly correlate to, you know, that property tax impact.
Now the increase in property taxes, of course, obviously there’s property taxes for undeveloped property. And we know that as a subdivided that is increased because each home then gets its own assessment. So that’s where that latency is. But this, this comes back to kind of a larger, broader view of, of where that that income is coming in during these phases.
Commissioner Fox
OK, thanks.
01:03:47 Gina Oster
Thank you, Commissioner Russell.
Commissioner Russell
Uh, yes Sir. I was actually doing some math so I lost track of my train of thought, but I’m assuming that part of the projections have to do with an increasing economy and an increasing desire for these homes and that if something like that changed then this could actually have the opposite effect if you had a declining.
Mr. Mullins
We can’t control the market. Obviously if the market drops out and we’ve built 100 homes and two of those homes are occupied, obviously those numbers are going to change. Now the model does take into account, I couldn’t quote you specifically the percentages or numbers, they don’t assume 100% occupancy 100% of the time.
You know, they do look at, you know, what the average occupancy rates are and sales rates and try to, to capture that. So you’re not looking at all 100 homes being occupied from day one through year 15. But you’re right, if, if there was a drastic change in the market or people stop moving here, people there’s a lesser demand for homes and then this the, those numbers would be different as with the, the infrastructure expenditures required to service those homes.
Commissioner Russell
I have a second question also.
And again I was just running some some quick,, quick math, but just Googling it appears we have 227,000 homes in Knox County now and if you look at that math then, and you had said that it generates 25,000,000 per hundred homes for the net income for the government over a 15 year period.
Mr. Mullins
Are these new homes or total homes?
Commissioner Russell
Those are total homes. That if if they do not you’re, you’re saying that they continue to generate this income over and over and over again.
Mr. Mullins
And the income shrinks once they’re occupied, but you know, with, with a new home, there’s that initial investment of the, the workers of the, the, the, you know, the development costs, the, the people are coming in and, during that construction phase, then that goes away. So you’re really. There is an initial boost into the economy because that’s just like 367 jobs. During the construction phase versus 66 jobs of you know that are generated per 100 homes.
Based upon, you know, the maintenance of those residents in Knox County. So yeah, you can’t the math won’t work right if you’re just taking the total number of homes and trying to function that it’s the construction of the new homes that that this is really focused on.
01:07:00 Gina Oster
Thank you, Commissioner Thompson.
Commissioner Thompson
Thank you, Madam Chair,
- So, so I hear you saying that last statement is that this the revenue stream and the I guess the return on the investment if we’re if we’re running the county like a business, we’re looking at the ROI of we’ve got new construction. And so what you’re saying is this is very front loaded. It is front loaded, it’s very front loaded and can in the long term the return is diminished, but the expenses remain.
Mr. Mullins
The expenses you know, they will go up and not as much as well. I mean, you look at the, the, the, the delta, the, the front loading is the new homes being constructed. And we’re always going to need new homes to be constructed. Homes come off the market homes, you know, people move here eventually, you know, the population, it’ll level out and there won’t be a need for it, which is why you look at it at 100 home bases instead of just, you know, you know, the number of homes are actually being built around the pipeline
Commissioner Thompson
- So if, if for some in some scenario the new home building stopped. Does this model work? If there’s no new construction with the front loading of the construction and all the. I guess, uh. The inflated revenue on the front end. If new construction stop, does this model work?
Mr. Mullins
If new construction stopped, then the model would stop, you know? And moving forward from the date the new construction stopped, but you’d still have the homes that were built. So at what point does it stop? If it stops in the year 16, then you’re still going to have the ongoing, the Phase 3 ripple effect income from those homes they’re generating in the future. But you won’t have that ongoing that new investment for the new homes.
Commissioner Thompson
Right and and we, but, but in that scenario we would still have the maintaining of the services and the infrastructure and all that with the homes that were already built. The reason the reason I’m asking this is because. There is only so much land.
And so if we continue to build out, I mean, I’m sure they’re still finding a place, somewhere to build new homes in Davidson County, but it gets smaller and smaller and then we’re kind of on top of each other. And I, I, I was thinking about how to, how to illustrate this. And so if you know, on, on our farm, we, we raised beef cattle and for so many, so many cattle and steers, I, I know I can get them sold and they, they each have their own fixed cost.
And no matter how many I bring in, each of them are gonna eat the same amount. The feed costing me the same, veterinary costing me the same. All this is gonna be the same. But once I I reach a threshold and I know that my my income versus expenses for each unit stays the same once I reach so many.
I’m now having to build on extra barns. I’ve run out of pasture because the resources that I have for 50 is enough to sustain 50. But as soon as I put 200 on here now I’ve run out of grass. I have to bring in more resources to cover that. So now my expenses overall are higher, but the fixed cost per unit or per animal is the same.
Mr. Mullins
I I think that’s that, that’s, that’s a fair comparison except for the fact that cows don’t go spend money in the local economy.
Commissioner Thompson
They don’t but that, but I can’t sell them for for a profit there isn’t There is an income,
Mr. Mullins
but there…but there’s not that multiplying, you know, for your expenses, you don’t see the benefit other than what you sell. You don’t see the return benefit of $1.00 being spent to this person, who then spends it to this person, who then spends it to this person, all in Knox County. And so you have $3 worth of income versus one
Commissioner Thompson
True I get that scenario, but all I’m all I’m saying is if, if I know that I, if, if in this scenario we know that we’re getting say $500 per house and and our expense is 200 dollars per house, but if we if we expand it out now we have to upgrade things we have to make, you know, we have to build another school, we have to widen roads, not just maintain what we currently have, but now we have more traffic further out now we’re widening, widening these these highways so.
Mr. Mullins
And this model takes into account the investment that has to happen to maintain the current level of services. If you want to educate the kids that are being brought in, you’re going to have to invest in more schools and this model looks at that expense as part of this,
1:11:36 – Commissioner Oster
Thank you, Commissioner Russell.
Commissioner Russell
Obviously, just going to give an example of the point that Commissioner Thompson was trying to make. In Farragut … on one end of Farragut they have grown to the point where they’re having to totally take out all of the sewer lines and replace them with large sewer lines. If they had been a little more moderate with what they had built on the one side, they would not have had to have done that.
So, at least that is my understanding of that situation. It depends on which who who you are hearing that story from. But anyway, that is an example. I mean, there’s a point where you add one more house, you’ve got to add a bigger pipe to get the water there.
Gina Oster
Thank you, Mr. Mullins. Thank you for coming. It’s good to see you tonight. Have a good evening.
Commissioner Oster
Next next item please.
1:12:40 Clerk
We are at public forum agenda items only.
Commissioner Oster
There’s no one signed up for public forum.
Clerk
Approval of minutes from the previous meeting.
Commissioner Oster
Do I have a motion to approve?
I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Thompson, a second by Commissioner Rawls. Any discussion?
Seeing none all in favor aye, all opposed. The ayes have it. Next item please.
Clerk
Driving roads Consideration of the acceptance of new county roads. A is Mockingbird meadows Dr. located in Mockingbird Meadows district7. B is Memory Hill Lane. C is Berkeley Landing Lane. They’re both located in Berkeley Landing district 8. D is Jerry Price Dr.- E Painted Shoals Lane.
F is Juliet Elise St. and G Caroline Grace St. They’re all located in Prices Point Unit 1, District 9.
Commissioner Oster
I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay and a second by Commissioner Jackson. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye, All opposed the ayes have it. Next Item please
Clerk
Line Item transfers total amount of $23,729,498.87.
Commissioner Jay
Motion to approve.
Commissioner Oster
I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay, second by Commissioner Hill. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye, all opposed. The ayes have it. Next item, please.
Clerk
Budget Amendment. Total amount of $6,667,144.63.
Commissioner Jay
Motion to approve.
Commissioner Oster
I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay. A second by Commissioner Hill. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. All opposed. The ayes have it. Next item, please.
Clerk
We have 135 notary public applications.
Commissioner Oster
Thank you. Do I have a motion? I got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Frazier, second by Commissioner Hill. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye, all opposed. The ayes have it. Next item, please.
1:14:50 Clerk
Item 23. Spread of record. It’s the spread of record. The election of Caroline Sudlow to represent the Circuit Court clerk’s office. Chris Blazer to represent the Criminal Court clerk’s office.Ian Christie to represent Seat B for the mayor’s office and Anne Sutter to represent Seat B for the Sheriff’s Office on the Employee Insurance Benefits Committee for the term beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2029.
We are now on resolution item number 24, which is resolution R-25-9-110.
It is accepting the resignation of Miss Kyle Nahrebne District 8C from the Knox County Library Advisory Board and appointing Julie Thompson to complete the term. The unfulfilled term for Mrs. Nahrebne on the Library Advisory Board, which term expires July 1st, 2026.
Commissioner Oster
Thank you. I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Frazier, second by Commissioner Thompson. Any discussion? All in favor, aye. All opposed. The ayes have it. Next item please.
Reappointing Two People to Serve on Merit System Board of Directors
1:16:09 Clerk
Item number 25 is Resolution R-25-9-111. It’s reappointing 2 individuals to serve to serve on the Knox County Sheriff’s Office Employees Merit System Board of Directors. The term expired September 30th, 2028.
Commissioner Oster
Thank you.
Before we make the motion, Mr. Smith was not here last week to speak, have his time to speak for the Merit Council and he has asked us ahead of time if he would speak. He was here this evening, so I would like to give him a few moments to introduce himself and tell us a little bit of why he wants to join the Merit Board. So, Mr. Smith, if you will. Is he here (indistinguishable conversation – Kim Frazier on the phone)
OK, so he’s left, alright.
So let me make the motion.
Umm, so right now we have I need a motion. Do I need a motion first before we do the names, before we No, it’s after. OK, sorry about that. Umm just explained. Remind everybody on the procedure. The clerk will call the roll as your name is called. You will nominate a candidate or pass. Once we’ve gone down the roll, the chair will look for a motion to cease nominations. The clerk will call the roll again. This time you will say the name of the candidate in which you would like to vote, if a candidate receives a majority, that person will be appointed to the position. If there’s no majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes will drop off and the process will repeat. So I’m going to read the name of the applicant is JB Brennan, Michael Crichton, Daniel Herrera, Christopher Smith and Sarah Steele. So I will now open up the floor for nominations. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll for nominations?
Commissioner Russell
Did you mention Mr. McFall?
Commissioner Oster
Oh, Mr. McFall.
I don’t know why that was marked out. I’m sorry about that, Mister McFall.
Yes, may I have him too?
Uh, starting one, please. OK, let me read these one more time. JB Brennan, Michael Crichton, Daniel Herrera, Steve McFall, Christopher Smith and Sarah Steele. Is that correct? OK.
We can start in District 1.
Merit System Board Voting
01:19:38 – 1st vote
Rawls – McFall
Durrett – out
Oster – Herrera
Jackson – Pass
Russell – Brennan
Hill – Pass
Lee – Pass
Thompson – Pass
Fox – Pass
Jay – Creighton
Frazier – Pass
1:20:30 Commissioner Oster
Or actually, we have 4 nominees. We have Steve McFall, Daniel Herrera, JB Brennan and Michael Crichton. And now we’ll call the roll and you vote for the person correct vote for one of these four. OK, OK. And then we’ll, yeah, then we’ll do it for a second time because we’ve got 2 appointments.
01:2100 – 2nd Vote
Durrrett – not present
Oster – Herrera
Jackson – McFall
Russell – Herrera
Hill – Herrera
Lee – Herrera
Thompson – Herrera
Fox – Herrera
Jay – Creighton
Frazier – Herrera
Rawls – McFall
01:22:10 Commissioner Oster
So Mr. Herrera got 7 votes. So congratulations. Thank you so much for being willing to serve, we will start again with Mr. McFall, Miss Brennan and Mr. Crichton. All right, so we’re gonna have to call it one more time. We’ve got a tie. So again, it’s McFall, Brennan and Creighton.
1:22:36 Next Vote
Jackson – McFall
Russell – Brennan.
Hill: McFall
Lee: Crighton
Thompson: Brennan
Fox: Brennan
Jay – Brennan
Frazier: Crighton
Rawls: McFall
Durrett – Not present
Oster – Creighton
1:23:50 – Next vote
Russell – Brennan
Hill – McFall
Lee – Creighton
Thompson – Creighton
Fox – Brennan
Jay – Brennan
Frazier – Creighton
Rawls – McFall
Durrett – out
Oster – Creighton
Jackson – McFall
There was some confusion at this point when they tried to determine how many votes each person got. It was decided that they needed to vote again.
1:26:39 – Next Vote
Hill – McFall
Lee – Brennan
Thompson – Brennan
Fox – Brennan
Jay – Brenan
Frazier – Crighton
Rawls – McFall
Durrett is out.
Oster – Crighton
Jackson – McFall
Russell – Brennan.
There was confusion again and then it was decided that it was now between Brennan and McFall. The least votes drops off.
1:28:34 1st Vote between Brennan and McFall
Lee – Brennan
Thompson – Brennan
Fox – Brennan
Jay – Brennan
Frazier – McFall
Rawls – McFall
Durrett – out
Oster – McFall
Jackson McFall
Russell – Brennan
Hill – McFall
That vote was a tie so they voted again
1:29:22 – 2nd vote Between Brennan and McFall
Thompson – Brennan
Fox – Brennan
Jay – inaudible
Fraser – McFall
Rawls – McFall
Oster – McFall
Jackson – McFall
Russell – Brennan
Hill – McFall
Lee – Brennan
This vote was also a tie. Commissioners were given the option of postponing until next month or to keep going. It was decided to try one more time.
1:30:49 Next Vote
Fox – Brennan.
Jay – Inaudible
Fraser – McFall
Rawls – McFall
Oster – McFall
Jackson – McFall
Russell – Brennan.
Hill – McFall
Lee – Brennan
Thompson – Inaudible
Commissioner Oster
Alright, So we do have a majority of Steve McFall. Mr. McFall, thank you for being willing to serve and for everyone else that was willing to serve, I appreciate it and we appreciate it.So, Madam Clerk, if you will read into the record, please.
1:31:50 Clerk
Resolution appointing Daniel Herrera and Steve McFall to serve on the Knox County Sheriff’s Office Employees Merit System Board of Directors. Terms expire September 30th, 20. I’m sorry, September 30th, 2028.
Commissioner Oster
Thank you. Do I have a motion? Got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Fraser, second by Commissioner Hill. Any discussion?
1:33:29 – At this point there was some confusion. There were some no’s to this vote and then one commissioner wanted to abstain. It was decided that they would do a voice roll call.
Rawls – Aye
Oster– Aye
Jackson – Aye
Russell – Abstain.
Hill – Yes
Lee – Abstain
Thompson – Inaudible
Fox – Abstain
Jay – Inaudible
Fraser – Aye
Commissioner Oster
Six ayes, one no, and three abstains. Motion passes.
1:34:06 Clerk
Next item is #26 Resolution R-205-9-112 is reappointing Jonathan Repass, District 2, Ashley Williams, District 4, John Elliott, District 6 and appointing an individual for the District 8 to the Knox County Board of Zoning Appeals. Terms expire September 30th, 2027.
1:35:20 – At this point there was some confusion as to how to go about making the appointment of the person to the District 8. It was determined that this was an appointment that should be made by Commissioner Thompson and he made a motion to appoint Phillip Graves. Commissioner Frazier seconded the motion. All commissioners present approved the motion.
Clerk reread the resolution
OK, this is a resolution reappointing Jonathan Repass District 2, Ashley Williams District 4, John Elliott District 6 and appointing Phillip Graves for District 8. The Knox County Board of Zoning appeals terms expired September 30th, 2027.
Vote to Replace Commissioner Russell on Knox County Audit Committee
Clerk
Item number 27-R-25-9-113. Accepted the resignation of Commissioner Angela Russell from the Knox County Audit Committee and appointing s commissioner to succeed Commissioner Russell on the audit committee.
Nominations
Commissioner Russell nominated Commissioner Fox and Commissioner Hill nominated Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Jay nominated Commissioner Oster. Commissioner Oster declined.
1:37:59 – Vote between Commissioner Fox and Commissioner Thompson for Knox County Audit Committee
Rawls – Thompson.
Ulster – Thompson.
Jackson – Fox
Russell – Fox
Hill – Thompson
Lee – Fox
Thompson – Thompson
Fox – Fox
Jay – Thompson
Frazier – Fox
It was determined there was a tie and they voted again.
1:38:53 – 2nd Vote between Thompson and Fox
Oster – Thompson
Jackson – Fox –
Russell – Fox
Hill – Thompson
Lee – Fox
Thompson -Thompson
Fox – Fox
Jay – Thompson
Fraser – Fox
Rawls – Thompson
There was a tie on this vote again. Initially they were going to defer to the next meeting, but Commissioner Jay brought up the fact that the audit committee would be meeting before the next county commission meeting and they only meet quarterly. They would still have a quorum, but he wanted to let the body know this fact.
Commissioner Russell
So it’s my resignation and appointing someone so if we don’t. If the motion doesn’t pass, then would I attend the audit committee meeting until someone is appointed.
Law Director
You can serve as a holdover under ordinary circumstances, but we’ve passed this rule that says that you’re not qualified to serve, which is why, which is what necessitated your resignation. So if you serve, you’d be serving in violation that rule. That’s the problem.
Commissioner Fox
Wouldn’t a vote to defer this effectively be a waiver of the rule, because this body ultimately can waive any rule. Isn’t that right?
Law direction
The body can wave a rule. It takes 2/3 vote to weigh the rule.
Commisioner Fox
So does that mean then if we have a 2/3
Law Director
Yes, to defer if 2/3 vote to waive the rule for one month so that Commissioner Russell can sit on the October audit committee meeting, that would be that would be acceptable.
Commissioner Hill
Would it be appropriate to make a motion for us to defer this until our October board meeting? I don’t believe I heard Commissioner Jay said it would prevent the audit committee from meeting.
Commissioner Jay
And we can, we can, we have 5 members. We can hold a meeting with four members. That doesn’t prevent it. I just wanted to point it out.
Commissioner Hill
Thank you. So that is in the form of a motion.
Commissioner Oster
I was just told by Madam Clerk that we did have the Commissioner Rawls make the motion to defer it for 30 days. It didn’t have a second right. So would you like to 2nd that?
Commissionerr Hill
I would like to second that
Commissioner Oster
OK, perfect. All right. And we will do this as a roll call. This is just to defer until next month.
Commissioner Russell
I’d like to make a friendly motion that we accept my resignation and just postpone the fulfillment until next month.
Commissioner Oster
Does the maker of the motion agree to that?
Commissioner Rawls
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what the motion was. The motion is to postpone. To just postpone the vote until next week. I mean, not next week, I’m sorry, next month, our next meeting.
Commissioner Russell
They’re they’re interrelated. It’s to accept my resignation and fulfill it. But I’d like to go ahead and have my resignation accepted. So, accept part of the motion, but not the other part.
Director Moyers
You’re asking that that the body vote to accept your resignation?.
Commissioner Russell
Yeah, to go ahead and accept my resignation, but postpone the vote to fulfill.
Commissioner Oster
That’s already in the caption. Is your resignation. So this would be to defer this vote for 30 days, correct?
Commissioner Oster
Do we have any other discussion?
Commissioner Jackson
I have, I have one thing. So we are, if we are delaying this for 30 days, we are delaying. accepting the resignation of Angel Russell. So should we just amend the current motion to accept the resignation of Commissioner Angela Russell and delay the appointment in October?
Commissioner Oster
Does that work? Yeah. And if you’ll start in District 4?
1:45:10 Vote to accept the resignation of Angela Russell and delay the appointment until October
Jackson – Aye
Russell – Aye
Hill– Yes
Lee – Aye
Thompson – Aye
Fox – Aye
Jay – Aye
Frazier – Aye
Rawls – Aye
Oster – Aye
Request to UDO to Incorporate a Comprehensive Utility Permitting Procedure
1:46:13 Clerk
The next item is #30 it’s resolution 902. Requesting the Unified Development Ordinance UDO leadership team to incorporate a comprehensive utility permitting promise process until the existing UDO efforts.
Commissioner Jay made a motion to approve. It was seconded. Chair opened it up for discussion
Commissioner Jay
Thank you, Madam Chair, I really want to just separate this one and the next one because they’re really two different efforts altogether. This one as I put on the forum, I, I want to talk about the next one. I plan to defer it and, and talk about the next steps of that. But this one was much simpler and, and much more straightforward.
Sorry, I was not here last week due to prior commitment, but I wanted to answer any questions that might be related to #902. It is is very simple, it just takes a vote of this body to codify a request from the UDO team and the leadership team to incorporate some sort of comprehensive utility permitting process into the UDO efforts.
But to research it to better find out best practices determine and that would determine any number of things current user, I mean they would have to look at what our current user agreements, what our other models and other similar jurisdiction or municipalities and jurisdictions look at what agreements are already in place if people are already paying pilots.
So it’s a it’s asking them to go out and do the research to come up with some recommendations that might be incorporated into that UDO that relates to using our right away. So this isn’t just about double polls. This is not using our right away as total.
And that could be from an HOA using the right of way to put in new sidewalks or it could be a utility company putting in sewers or electricity or you know utility poles or drainage, it could be from personal users that need to encroach on the need to use the right away for whatever particular construction. So it’s it’s asking this team go out find best practices come back and see how it can be incorporated into the UDO as a as a way to move forward.
We Knox County currently has virtually no permit. It has no permit fees and it has very little permit process in a comprehensive way other than if you show up and you want to work in our right away, they issue you a permit pretty much carte blanche. So that is that is what this resolution is focused on. Happy to take any questions and discussions. Thank you.
Commissioner Rawls
Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner, Commissioner Jay. I’d like a little bit more time with this but but I do have a question about it is this. Is this regarding some bad actors that we have in the county.
Commissioner Jay
This, this relates to any, anybody that wants to use it. So we have a public right of way. It is your land, it is my land, it is everyone’s land. And so currently there, there is no permitting process at all. All of the work falls upon our engineering and public works department and that’s for people that operate properly in the right away people that operate improperly in the right away people that at one point operated properly and now won’t.
You know, a perfect example of of, you know, this would been, you know, Shaad Rd. where somebody who has been a a good company to work with, you know, didn’t relocate and, and, you know, didn’t move utilities. And so they had a big issue. Now I’m going to get into that in the next resolution, but like essentially like there is no process by where there’s a permit fee at all to use our right away, but yet the all the workload falls on our engineering and public works staff to manage that right away, good and bad.
So if everything went perfect every single time, fine. But right now what we’re doing is we’re adding more and more and more layers of work to our engineering and public works team and we have no, there’s no compensation to support that. So the the public is subsidizing now it could be a utility that is something everybody uses, but it could be a telecom that not everybody uses.
So the public is essentially giving free access to use our right away and then putting a huge amount of administrative work on our engineering team to manage that right away. And so the, , question is, can you go out and see what is the best practice so that, you know, let’s say at any telecom X wants to come in. Well, they may come in and use all of our resources, but they don’t pay us for that.
So it’d be the same thing as if a builder wanted to build a subdivision and there was no permit fee for the building process. Like we don’t do that with all these other things. So why do we do that in the right away? So we’re just asking go out and look and see how do other people treat their right away and how do they do a permitting process?
Commissioner Rawls
OK I do like I do like where where your head is on that I I would like some time though. Versus making the decision now because I’m thinking about two some some bad actors who do not use the right away and you know who become bad partners to the county. And in thinking about that I’d like maybe some language or possibility of looking at moving to a lawsuit versus holding permits.
Commissioner Jay
OK, I really, really want to encourage you to totally separate everything you just said into resolution 903 because that is that is all about 903. And I and, and, and I have already agreed to give a lot more time to that. That is a your, you and I are in that same bucket at 903, but this is 902. This is just asking the same team that just gave us a presentation to go out and look at what people do to manage it right away with a permitting process doesn’t mean that. It will be instituted. It doesn’t mean, it will be approved. It’s just come back to us and tell us what you found.
Commissioner Frazier.
Thank you. Madam Chair. I just want to say thank you to Commissioner Jay for digging into this and, and also the work that has occurred over the past year. I think it was really effective and productive. And I also agree that the processes that we have currently in regards to our right of way standards are a bit archaic. And in saying that, Director Snowden, can I ask you a couple of questions?
Director Snowden
And sure be glad to sure.
Commissioner Frazier
So this is really about the UDO. So would this be as far as utility guidelines, would this be codified in the public right away section of the UDO?
Director Snowden
It it would be that that would be our intent. The the road and bridge standards section that currently houses our sidewalk standards as well as our, you know, different various residential industrial cross sections, it would reside in that document.
Commissioner Frazier
- So would this work be included as part of the consultant’s current scope of work or would another consultant be necessary to bring in?
Director Snowden
It it would be. We’ve talked to Orion about this. This really isn’t in their wheelhouse as well as these utilities are typically re, you know, kind of local issues. You know, we need a probably a local firm to kind of that understands, you know, permitting with KUB & LCUB to kind of maintain those good partnerships as Commissioner Jay said, you know, really to kind of, you know, look at what the other, what other municipalities are doing in our area, so it would be a supplement to that work and it would be most likely a local engineering firm that has experience with all these various utilities.
Commissioner Frazier
So at that point, would we have to find additional funding for that consultant and then would that consultant work with Orion, can you just and do we have an estimate of what that additional funding might be and how it would be funded?
Director Snowden
Sure, yeah. I kind of expected that question so I talked to one of the consultants that that we potentially could use on this, they estimated kind of a, a ceiling of around $50,000 to do the outreach and the inclusion of the plan. Yes, that consultant would work very much closely with Orion. They would be involved in in our leadership meetings and things like that to ensure that there was a seamless transition. But the those that dollar amount would be something that we could handle.
Mr. Caldwell and was so gracious to allow us to use on some ARP money for this consultant or the Orion contract. So we had some money in our account, the engineering account that we had slated to pay for that. So we actually have some, I guess, surplus money for the project that we could use without asking for additional appropriation or any kind of amount from this body.
Commissioner Hill
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I do support this piece of the issue that Commissioner Jay has brought forward because what we’re doing right now isn’t working.
I mean, that’s just, that’s just the truth of it. And, and it, it really, it’s not even any point at pointing fingers because nobody appears to be able to do anything anyway. So to include this in our UDO, which, uh, it would seem this would be the ideal time since we’re in the middle of a total rewrite is not even saying in the end we’ll charge fees or will do one thing or another. It merely is just asking this process to investigate it along with other things that we’re doing that fall under the UDO to find out what best practices are and what other counties are in fact doing. So it really is nothing final at all.
Umm, but I do absolutely feel the sense of urgency that it does need to be included. Umm, we’ve got. In my own district, we have got the state road being held up this minute because we cannot get a Frontier. I don’t care to call them out to come and move some poles in front of a new development so we can get the road widened.
I mean, this is just crazy that we have no authority to do anything to get this to happen, so I do feel the sense of urgency to include this in the UDO, we don’t know what it’s going to look like, but it definitely needs to be addressed. Thank you.
Commissioner Oster
Commissioner Jay, I’m, I’m not opposed to this at all. I almost feel a little bit like I would like both of these to kind of come online at the same time. It’s just my feeling about it. On with the UDO. Uh, Director Snowden if it goes on the UDO and we’ve got Frontier doing what they’re doing over on Emory. Is that right?
Commissioner Jay
Madam Chair, I just want to point out like please, there’s a that is a that is separate of what this resolution is.
Commissioner Oster
So this doesn’t have anything to do with franchise fees or anything like that.
Commissioner Jay
No. No. I’m going to get to that in 903. This is and if you would permit me the the reason I wanted to proceed with this is because we’re right in the timeline of the UDO and adding this in and I’m gonna make a motion to delay the other one 90 days so we can have some more meeting and time because it’s much more complicated and I don’t want to pick it back up in December. And these, you know, this team is so far ahead. I want to kind of make sure it’s right there at the same time so we don’t delay anything with the UDO by sliding this in at this point.
Commissioner Oster
OK, maybe my question in this area is not relevant then.Putting it in the UDO codifies it, meaning that we have a little bit more say and you, you guys have a little bit more say than what you feel like you’ve got right now.
Director Snowden
Is that that’s correct, Chairman? We right now we routine, well, not routinely, but sometimes when we do get a bad actor, we will hold permits. But we don’t have certainly your, it’s not codified anywhere. That’s just something that we try to do and it seems to work fairly well. But if someone called us on it, I don’t know if we would have the the legislative authority to back that up.
Commissioner Oster
But that’s something that can be discussed during the process to see what we’re able to do with legal department.
- Thank you.
Commissioner Thompson.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Director Snowden, so. Yeah, we’ve, we’ve talked a few times about, you know what, what can we do on our end to make your life and your job and things easier, more streamlined, more enforceable, where it’s a little more black and white and gives you, I guess more solid ground to stand on when you come across the situation. What from one understanding this does that, correct?
Director Snowden
That’s correct. We our our procedure much like we talked about our zoning code is really old. I don’t think our utility permitting process is that old, but it is pretty old and it’s never went through what I would consider a really robust review like what this is proposing to do.
Commissioner Oster
Any further questions? All right. We’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay and a second by Commissioner Hill. All in favor. Aye, all opposed. The ayes have it. Next item please.
Resolution Granting Authority of Knox County Engineering and Public Works to Withhold Future Utility Permits
2:00:30 Clerk
Item number 31 is Resolution 903. It’s granting authority to Knox County Engineering and Public Works to withhold future utility permit applications of utility providers that do not comply with the county procedures or promptly address matters such as the removal of surplus equipment facilities, remediation and hazardous facilities and the relocation of facilities in conflict with Knox County road projects.
Commissioner Jay
Motion to defer 90 days, but with discussion.
Commissioner Thompson
2nd.
Commissioner Oster
I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay to defer for 90 days, with discussion a second by Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Jay.
Commissioner Jay
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Commissioners. I apologize for sort of jumping in on the last one, because I really want to separate the two issues.
As you know, for nearly fifteen months and with many people on this Commission participating, we’ve been working on essentially how to clean up Knox County, how to make Knox County safer and how to make sure that we are working with people that are respecting the right of way and the safety of our of our citizens and, and the aesthetics of our community. And that had started with double polls, but really it expands to anything in the right away.
And so I tell you about 15 months ago when we started this process, you know, I started in a very, very different way, which was focused purely on double poles, it was focused on, you know, per poll penalties per day, giving utilities a lot, you know, six months of time to clean it up and then really being punitive. And then over time as they came to the table and as this Commission worked through things, we all agreed to sit down for a year and meet and sort of address the problem.
And so we did that and we met many, many times over the year as I’ve reported this July, some people very active and participating and solving the problem. Some people not so much. And some people just ignore this flat out. And really what this gets down to is those bad actors. So I want to show a very perfect example.
I’m asking the team to put up a photo and it was referenced by Commissioner Hill. So right across this is right at Belltown this is West Emory Road and it’s just just past just up the road from Clinton Highway intersection. You guys know where Belltown is there’s a commercial entity of Belltown across the street.
This Commission has approved the road widening well past Belltown, the next neighborhood all the way back to Clinton Highway to make things two lanes, turn lane, sidewalks, infrastructure and that includes private contractors, public, our public money, private money from the developer, this is a massive project.
I don’t know exactly the dollar amount, but I know it’s in the millions. And as you can see right here in the center you see the big mound of dirt at the end with the cone and that pole and then everything behind it and then it comes up and if I were to show you the next 6 pictures in every in the other direction you would see that this entire Knox County road project is being held up by 1 telecom company that has chosen to ignore us and that is Frontier and they have not moved those lines.
Now those poles are owned by KUB & KUB has been a very active partner for the last year, removing moving thousands and thousands of poles, but they cannot move to their pole, remove their poles until these lines are moved over to the brand new poles sitting there on the other side of the road which you see.
So one company has been unresponsive and and I promise you, you will testify to this Commissioner Snowden. They have tried emails, they have tried phone calls, they have they probably sent carrier pigeons with notes on them and said come and do this.
Now what was amazing is this one telecom company was part of the construction process, part of the construction meetings, the timeline, the schedule, everything on the front end? Hey, we’re coming, we’re widening at the table and now has just completely ghosted us, and the entire thing can’t proceed until this one company. But here’s what this resolution is really about. If Frontier showed up to Jim’s office today and said I would like some new permits to run brand new lines in Hardin Valley, he would have to give it to him.
Even though they’re holding up this project and this has happened on Shaad Road with another telecom company, this is happening. You probably give you 20 examples off of this head where the the work of the public is being stopped because companies do not want to spend money on things that don’t generate revenue. And they have basically thumbed it in our eye and said, you know what, I’ll get to you when I get to you. And it’s costing us real money. It’s costing our partners in development real money. It’s costing neighborhoods real eggs, because this is going to sit there for how long?
Waiting for more and more. I mean, the neighbors are affected, everybody’s affected and he would have to give them new permits. And so the crux of this ordinance. And again, I’m going to defer for 90 days. I’m going to hold another meeting some probably sometime the end of October, beginning of November with plenty of time doing the main assembly. We’ll invite all of you. We’ll invite every telecom, we’ll invite every neighborhood, anybody who wants to come and have a big discussion about this and we’ll talk about this resolution because what we’re doing here and what I’m asking you to do is grant, Mr. Snowden and his team the ability to just say no?
You don’t get to put new lines in Hardin Valley until you finish the work over here, and there is a perfect example of this in the 5th district. The town of Farragut has virtually no double poles.
Because they do this, they say, sorry, you can’t start here until you clean up that. But this doesn’t just apply to double poles. This applies to sewage pipes. Imagine Hallsdale Powell up in your guyes area, up in District 7, put all those new sewer lines and then just left the old sewer lines.
Right next to the hole right and just covered it up and just said there you go and just left them behind. I promise you Commissioner Lee would have a coronary and would go crazy and the residents would go crazy. So just because it’s vertical does not mean it’s not garbage. What we’re doing is giving the ability. This has nothing to do with fines. This has nothing to do with any other like punitive monetary thing. It’s just saying, Mr. Snowden, you have the ability to say no until they comply with the thing that they agreed to on the front end.
So with that, I’ll take questions. Again, I will pull the public meeting, but I’m happy to talk about it tonight and apologies for not being here next.
Commissioner Fox.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Why don’t we just amend this to just say if you look at the resolution itself. The Knox County Engineering and Public Works Department is hereby authorized to withhold all future utility permit applications made by Frontier Telecom. Period.
Commissioner Jay
Well, because it’s there’s about 9 or 10 different people that could be falling into that. And I think there is a lot of questions too about there have been a lot of questions raised by certainly utility and telecom companies and some other commissioners. So I’m just sort of giving a little bit of breathing room and I think versus pushing it through tonight, I mean, I’m happy to respect the process of it.
Commissioner Fox
Well, I’m, but I’m not saying all you, I’m just saying this one because they’ve been particularly resistant. So we say we and again, we’re not saying that EPW has to withhold it. We’re just saying, well, for this one you got permission and then and then we can deal with the rest of it later.
That’s that’s what I would do, because 90 days is a long time and this project is still just sitting there. And, you know, the weather’s gonna get bad in 90 days and it’s gonna sit there anyways. And you know, we may be effectively postponing this project for a long time if we don’t give some kind of club to EPW with respect to this particular company, that’s just my two cents
Commissioner Oster
Director Moyers, would you like to address that?
Director Moyers
Well, I think I think naming a particular company is for, for legal action or for, for legislative action comes pretty close to a bill of attainder. I’m not sure that would be constitutional. But what we can do, and I texted Director Snowden in the process of this, we can bring a lawsuit against Frontier. We can ask them for a mandatory injunction from a court to order them to move their pole. And I’m I’m happy to start working on that tomorrow. Nobody’s referred it to us, but that would be the better way to go than passing a resolution directed at one at 1 pole and so so you know that’s for this project and anything else that’s being held up, that’s that is a route we can go. Uh, I file lawsuits in the negative to make people clean up their lots all the time. Uh, we can do the same thing here.
Commissioner Rawls
Thank you, Madam Chair, just Mr. Snowden.Just a question, Mr. Moyers, I do like your zeal for filing a lawsuit.
And that’s my question is what ..what are the steps that you guys take like how long is too long? I mean, if we’re talking 90 days, we’re talking big construction projects, We’re talking hundreds of thousands being burned weekly, right? So at what point would you guys begin to file a lawsuit or is it even in your, you know, in the way that you guys do business?
Director Snowden
Well, we’ve we’ve never really pursued that action I think that’s a that’s a good stick for us to have in our toolbox. in this case and Commissioner Jay referenced this I mean before before we even acquired the right of way necessary for this project Frontier was sitting at the table they saw our plans we said hey this is this is the impact that’s going to be to you so they’ve had well, I would assume somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 to 18 months everyone else has relocated.
So you know, I always want to be fair and equitable. I don’t want to be punitive in any, any measure. We want to build good relationships with these folks, but we also want to make sure that at the end of the day the the public’s interest are not being taken advantage of. And in this case, this particular utility has really been pretty much non-responsive for I would say a good 60 days. So I mean, I think, I think at the time that you know this, this action maybe maybe needed and warranted.
Commissioner Rawls
I’m, I’m in favor of, of the 30 day, I mean 90 days. I’m in favor of the resolution. I, I just want to put some teeth in here too, right? I don’t want somebody to be dragging us along like this.
Director Snowden
Yeah, we had another instance that reminds me, we had a project a couple of years ago that we had a road closed. You know, in this case the, the, the traffic’s still out there. It’s actively moving. It’s an inconvenience, but it’s not, you know, that that big a deal. We had a road closed that I’m not going to name the utilities.
But that would not get off of a set of poles and that was the only reason the road was was closed. So these type tools that Mister Moyers mentioned or our consultant can come up with will be invaluable for us to minimize that disruption and inconvenience to our citizens.
Commissioner Lee
Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Moyers, how would we? I mean, what is the process for the lawsuit? Do we have to vote on that or is that something because I’d be all in favor of that. Of doing a lawsuit
Director Moyers
to me, to me, it’s the same as as getting a referral from the codes department. If Mr. Snowden asked me to pull the trigger on filing a lawsuit for a mandatory injunction to require them to move the poll, we’ll get right on that.
Commissioner Lee
Would you do that, Mister Snowden?
Director Snowden
I will I would like to talk to the mayor about it. Obviously I do report to him and I would want to get his concurrence on that. But I do think in in in certain instances and this being one of them, it would be my recommendation to proceed in that direction.
Commissioner Lee
So you would get back to us? Because I would like to know the answer
Director Snowden
Yes, ma’am.
Commissioner Thompson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Director Moyers, it wasn’t too long ago that you and I had a conversation about. I have an injunction and and a lawsuit and things about something in the in the 8th district. So I. If, if Commissioner Hill is, is is amenable to it too, I think this would be very appropriate given that the they’ve been non responsive for 60 days and they were part of the process for 16 to 18 months and everyone else has moved. They’re the only ones left. It just seems logical that’s, that’s the next step, yeah.
Director Moyers
That’s like I said.I work with the codes department all the time filing these kinds of lawsuits when we can’t get, you know, react action, the ordinary way or through letters and things like that. Umm.
It just hasn’t been referred to me. It doesn’t really require any action from this body. I just need to just need somebody in the administration say hey, sue these guys and we’ll do it. It’s not a problem.
Commissioner Jay
Thank you. I just the wrapping up the conversation, I wanted to say thank you. I, I, I know everybody on this Commission wants a safer Knox County, wants a cleaner Knox County and wants to solve these problems long term. I appreciate the patience. It’s been a long journey ahead to this point and I, I think it still will be,
But I, I really appreciate the, the support to give it a pause to come to the table, try to work through the next steps and, and, and, you know, let us all forget that, you know, we are the public, and we are the public’s land and we want to have good partners, but we also want to make sure that people do the right thing and and take don’t take advantage of us or engineering team. So thank you very much, commissioners.
Commissioner Oster
Commissioner Jay, thank you for postponing this for 90 days because I think that gives everybody time to get to the table and talk because they’re definitely my 2 utility companies will, you know, have been good partners and attended your meetings so far and I may suggest.
Before the meeting, if there’s some legal questions that Commission has, send those over to Director Moyers so you’ll kind of have those answers instead of kind of putting him on the spot there? That may not, may not actively have it, but I think it could be extremely helpful. And so I’m looking forward to the discussion.
I think we can definitely get to a happy medium in there somewhere. So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay to defer for 90 days and a second by Commissioner Thompson. All in favor, Aye, all opposed. The ayes have it. Next item, please.
Amendment ot Knox County Sheriff’s Office Employees’ Merit System Rules
2:16:20 Clerk
Item number 33 is resolution 905. It’s approving an amendment to the Knox County Sheriff’s Office employees merit system rules and regulations subsection 3.1 point B .6 structure and qualifications to provide for members of the merit system board to be eligible to serve if he or she has not previously been employed by the Sheriff’s Office within the five years instead of 10 years preceding his or her appointment and to remove the requirement that a person is not eligible to serve on the Merit System Board if any member of the person’s family is or becomes employed by the Knoxville Police Department.
Commissioner Oster
Have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Frazier and second by Commissioner Thompson.
Commissioner Fraser
Thank you. Madam Chair, Just a reminder, I mentioned at the agenda review that you’ll see this resolution in addition to the ordinance regarding the Merit System Board, because the ordinance makes the change in the Knox County Code.
However, the eligibility requirements of Merit System Board members are also set out in the Merit System Board’s rules and regulations, which is adopted and amended by resolution of the Commission. Therefore, we need the separate resolution to amend the rules and regulations so that it is consistent with the ordinance with the Knox County Code.
Commissioner Jay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not exactly sure if if there was much conversation this last year but sorry last week but I just want to follow up on some of my comments and thoughts from last time on the first reading.
I have implored all of you, and the best way I can not to take the guardrails off of the merit system that we worked so hard to reform so we can keep politics and potential corruption at bay for the benefit of our officers. The purpose of this merit system.
In a time when public corruption, especially in Knox County, is I think right back at its peak with things that have happened five years ago that are just coming to trial…things that have happened in the last two years, things are going on right now.
This is not the time to put the guardrails down and allow the potential for more politics and more political corruption and to go back to where we started. I sort of sat here in amazement as tonight this Commission kicked off two people from the current Merit System Board with a combined 50 years of law enforcement experience.
One who has served for the last term multiple years with honor and integrity for the officers, one who you all unanimously voted for two months ago, who also is a long tenured law enforcement professional.
And completely booted 2 people that are officers, were officers, and have experience with officers for at least one purely political choice with no law enforcement experience whatsoever.
I just I sat here in amazement as we’ve already backslid the first step into going right back where we started from with political positions and political people who..you know this is not what this merit system is for. You know we are. We are in a time where.It it, it is getting, it’s getting more political and we’re losing sight of what we do and why we do it. And the merit system is something that is for our officers. It is for their protection.
And I I’m sorry, but this effort reeks of making it more political. I mean the, the, the, the sponsor of this resolution has a family member who’s a treasurer for a potential sheriff’s candidate or that is a sheriff’s candidate in an election that we’re like months away from.
So, we have an election right around the corner and remember the merit system is all about protecting the officers from political retribution. So, when a new sheriff comes in, they can’t just go clean house and fire anybody they want because they weren’t on the team or they weren’t buddies or whatever. It protects our officers and so.
In like seven months we have a primary and another four months after that we have a general and by next September we’re gonna have a new sheriff and so to pull guardrails off now to add more people to the board now that are political in nature, and then to then bring more guardrails down to let more people in. It just, it seems like an incredible backslide to where we started and how it got so bad.
So I’m going to make a substitute amendment to actually approve this…as you all want to approve it, but to take effect on January 1, 2027, because then that will allow for a new sheriff to come in for at least four to five months to pass of time where hopefully they won’t clear house and these protections will stay in place and the board will uphold them and let the dust settle.
And then if these restrictions, if you all want these restrictions to be reduced, then give it some time and make sure that it’s not abused now between now and the next sheriff because I, I want our officers protected at all costs and with an election coming, I can tell you they’re nervous. They’re nervous once again, and the only backstop they have is an honest, fair and ethical merit system board that will follow the rules and make sure that they are not…they don’t have retribution, so my substitute motion is to approve this as written, but to take effect on January 1st, 2027.
Seconded by Commissioner Fox
Commissioner Russell.
I would like to offer a friendly amendment to change the 5 to 8 years and again that has to do with a complete political cycle. If you have a sheriff in there who gets in there for 2 terms that last eight years. And I just think that it is more it gives time for the friend and buddy system to have kind of dissipated a little more at 8 years from five years. But I do agree that 10 years is too long. But I do think 8 years because that’s 2 election cycles.
Commissioner Jay
I would amend my motion to make it 8 years and take effect on January 1, 2027 with the second concur.
Commissioner Fox
Uh, uh, yes, I, I do, uh, I do have a question. I’m just trying to get my arms around where we were because, uh, just to explain my change in position. I mean, I was concerned, are we gonna have, you know, adequate numbers of people to serve in this, on this board or this committee? And then we had all these people sign up and I’m like, this is not really a concern of having enough people to possibly serve so.
Like, well, then we then we can keep the gate very narrow. And so that’s that’s why I’ve changed my position about it. So again.
Originally, it was Commissioner Jay that to 10 years, no Knox County, No, no KPD. Is that right?
Commissioner Jay
Yes, Sir. OK.
Commissioner Fox
And now it’s is it just Knox County or the proposal before you made your motion was just Knox County in five years? Or is KPD still in place?
Commissioner Jay
Well, it’s as it’s written in here, it’s employed by the Sheriff’s Office in five years instead of 10 and removing the KPD. So just seeing that the body was OK with that and in the last vote, in the last discussion, I was, I was just amending, you know, this to when to take effect and agreeing with it. Commissioner.
Uh, well, let’s see. Hold on, let me read this on that. Yeah, five years instead of 10 and removing the requirement that a person is not eligible to serve on the merit system Board of anywhere. It’s because so separating the KPD completely. So I was just amending it to when it would take effect.
Commissioner Russell had suggested eight years instead of 10 because that does have full 2 full spans of a a potential sheriff’s thing. So I’m OK amending it to 8 with the taking of effect. But the second that you would have to concur with that
Commissioner Fox
I concur.
Commissioner Frazier.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I’m willing to find compromise. What I would like to say is this was brought forward because we all made a pledge that we would advocate for more citizen involvement on county boards and committees.
As I mentioned to you all when I brought this forward.
I don’t think any individual should be limited to serve their community because of their profession. I think that we should all be able to use our skills and qualifications to give back to our community, so this was to minimize barriers for individuals who have served and protected this community their entire career and then wanted to continue to serve the community but could not use their experience for 10 years.
This was not political. And I take great offense of you implying that it was.
It’s unprofessional and it is disrespectful. I’ve heard from officers, I’ve heard from past members of the Merit Board who said there were false statements made at this Commission about happenings at the Merit Board.
I said nothing. I was respectful. I also have information that one of the applicants for Merit Board did not disclose how they learned of the opening on merit board.
I take issue with that. Merit board should be completely transparent. If you can’t be transparent when asked a simple question about how you learned about an opening on the board you wish to serve, then you are not going to represent my officers.
I have a reason that I can justify all day long for every decision that I make as the commissioner representing all of Knox County. I will never be doubted for that.
So, I am willing to compromise to 8 years. Without the start date of January 1st, 2027.
Commissioner Russell.
Umm. I just wanted to say that my primary position on the resolution has to do with the fact that we have discussed not having any conflict of interest quite a lot the last few months and that is why I don’t feel like 5 years is enough time to eliminate a potential conflict of interest and that’s why I suggested the 8.
To me KPD – there’s no conflict of interest there. If you’ve been in the Sheriff’s Office for within the last five years and it’s still the same sheriff, and it’s the sheriff maybe that you have an axe to grind with. You may be grinded, you you could grind that ax five years, eight years, you’re under a totally different. Umm, person who’s in charge and it eliminates any potential conflict of interest. And we’ve talked about conflict of interest so much lately. Umm, I just want to make sure that we’re eliminating any conflict of interest and that’s why I keep going back to that eight.
Commissioner Fox.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just want to further state and clarify why I changed my position because I thought of the Air Force Academy, The Air Force Academy. I think if you want to fly a plane, you go to the Air Force Academy. You want to actually fly. You have to have 20/20 vision. And there are, I think, tons of great candidates who are at the Air Force Academy who don’t have 20/20 vision but would be otherwise available or or would qualify. It’s just there’s so many that have all the same qualifications and have 20/20 vision that those they can limit it to that because there’s enough of a pool.
And that, that’s how I look at this. It’s like we, we had all these people. I don’t think any of these people who applied had that, that they didn’t because we haven’t changed the rules yet. So all these people that applied, they didn’t have this restriction of, you know, not being part of the, the Sheriff’s Office or KPD. And so it’s like, why do we need to broaden it if we already have enough people showing up in the first place?
But that’s why I’m, you know, changed my mind about this. I’m fine with eight years and I’ll leave it up to other people because I think as far as procedurally, we’re still on the motion made by Commissioner Jay that was seconded by Commissioner Russell that would only go into effect on January 27th. So that’s where we are, I believe.
Commissioner Hill
I do, I do concur with what you bring forth, Commissioner Fox, And that initially I was, I was more likely to support this because we were dying for applicants on the Merit Board. I mean, we would have an opening and we’d have, you know, two people maybe. And I actually did have two different officers contact me in the last couple months about applicants and I said will help us find some. Help us find some if you know, especially if you want a change and either they did or somebody did, because our number grew from two to seven.
So I, I was very, very pleased to see that applicant pool that we had and Umm, you know, for whatever reason someone might feel like they were or were not elected today, I do feel like we, uh, for the first time in a long time, really had good, good choices to make. So I am I am more inclined to support the new motion myself, given that.
Commissioner Thompson.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess what bothers me about previous statements was how how little faith do we have in the integrity of the one the sheriff that the people are electing. And if anything, we’ve got to a larger pool of sheriff candidates this round than we have in the past.
And I would dare say the integrity of all the candidates is pretty well intact.
And I’ve spoken with our current sheriff and several former Merit board members who were one, the sheriff was he’s, you know, it’s whatever y’all decide it, it, you know, one way or the other, it didn’t, it didn’t matter. I just know it’s, it’s that’s the merit board and you know, it should take care of the officers, but the former merit board members were highly supportive of this, knowing the painstaking effort that it that you went through to take the political rhetoric and tone out of the merit board.
So if anybody decides to go work on a campaign they cannot serve on the merit board and that’s you know there have been board members who have left for that very reason who would love to continue to serve but no they felt the calling to support a candidate and become a candidate whatever it may be and they did they did what they were supposed to do and walked away.
And so, but there have been concerns that that 8-10 year span is too long because once they, once they get 8-10 years out, they’ve lost interest, they’re retired, they moved on with their lives. Their pace has changed. They settled into a new life, if you will, and going back into service after they’ve, you know, they’ve those that tone of their life has has cooled down quite a bit.
It and finding those those candidates so that yes, this this time we had several candidates for merit board. But what about next time? You know, we had we had two seats to fill and there there was.I dare say because of this discussion there was a little more attention than hey, we had some openings. That’s not the case every time. Now granted Merit Board is not the library board, but it’s like pulling teeth to find some people for these volunteer boards.
And good qualified candidates so. I mean, I, I’m still in supportive of, in support of the the five years and no KPD just from the feedback that I’ve received from former Merit board members.
And my interaction and conversations with them and their history of of what the merit board, how it’s transformed and how we got to where we currently are and how comfortable they were having gone through all of that, that transition period, how comfortable they were now making this change now that the political rhetoric group has has been taken out of it. So thank you.
Commissioner Jackson
Uh, first is just a clarification Director Moyers. If we amend what was approved last month does tonight technically become first reading?
Director Moyers
Well, right now we’re on the resolution that that wasn’t on last month. Because of the way we do things now, we not only have the ordinance, but we also have the resolution that sets forth the rules. So, so we’re right now in the resolution. But your question I think is if we change the ordinance, which we would have to do to reflect what we’ve done in the resolution, otherwise they’d be contradictory.
That’s a, that’s a pretty significant change, particularly if we, if we accept everything that that Commissioner Jay has suggested here. It might be well to consider that basically first reading and, and second reading, you know, as amended tonight.
Commissioner Jackson
So I have a question for Commissioner Frazier. If we were to..since it looks like we’re probably gonna have to have a second reading anyway on this. If if you were to amend this to include the five years but state…I don’t know exactly. I’m I’m kind of thinking this as I’m talk, talking out loud, thinking out loud here.
That if they, you know, if they had not been part of the current sheriff’s administration the five years would still be valid. So, in other words, if you know, uh, five years is the limit as long as the sheriff has changed.
Does that make sense?
Commissioner Frazier
I think that’s an excellent suggestion.
Commissioner Jackson
I I I’ll take suggestions on how we can affect that.
Commissioner Frazier
Uh, I would too from the law director.
2:39:10 (Conversation regarding rules)
Commissioner Jackson
So could we just have some discussion on, you know, what I just referenced about the five years as long as it it’s a new sheriff. And maybe we ought to delay this for 30 days and maybe revisit the wording of everything.
Commissioner Rawls
Robert’s Rules is when a substitution and the discussion is on the table, you’re only discussing that statement. So we cannot, we should not discuss to convoluted with the new dates, I like the I like what you’re saying, but for the sake of clarity we have to stay on the substitute.
Commissioner Oster
Commissioner Thompson do you have any other discussions about this substitute that we have on the floor right now?
Commissioner Thompson
Very briefly. Yes, because in the in this, in the spirit of what Commissioner Jackson just mentioned and where I think this conversation is turned, I’d like to go ahead and I guess call this question so we can I guess put this substitute to bed and move forward with the other conversation.
Commissioner Russell
So to clarify, you have made a motion that you are willing to change the five to eight years, but not accept the 2027.As a compromise, you were you were willing to accept the eight years but not do the 2027.Uh, sunset or start date?
Commissioner Oster
Yeah, we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Jay and a second by Commissioner Fox. So that’s what we’re going to go ahead and vote on right now.
Commissioner Jackson.
One last comment, I will be voting no against this. I think we need to recommend everybody vote no so that way we can, you know, re put this. Let’s go back to the drawing board.
Commissioner Jay
Madam Chair, can I clarify? So my motion that’s currently on the table is to amend this to 8 years and take effect on January 1st, 2027. And that is what Commissioner Fox seconded. OK. Thank you.
Commissioner Oster
Does everybody understand where we are? OK, so. We have a substitute motion on the floor for 8 for it to go to 8 years, with it being effective January 1, 2027. That motion’s been I’ts been a motion. We’ve got a second. We’re getting ready to vote on that.
Commissioner Hill
So to just to clarify, we vote, we vote to substitute down, which is what this is. I’m asking if we vote the substitute down, then we’re back to the and then we’re back to the original motion and that that is the one that we are hoping to postpone.
Commissioner Oster
We’ll let Commissioner Frazier. Commissioner Frazier can then make a motion. But this is where we are right now. Just substitute much. Let’s get this out of the way.
(Initially they tried to do a voice vote but decided to do a roll call. In addition there was still confusion as to what the motion actually was))
In the subsequent motion is to change the eight years to be effective January 1st, 2027, correct? OK, Commissioner Ross.
2:45:15 – Substitute Motion to change to 8 years effective January 1, 2027
Roll Call Vote
Rawls – No
Oster – No
Jackson – No
Russell – Yes
Hill – No
Lee – Yes
Thompson – No
Fox -Yes
Jay – Yes
Frazier – No
Commissioner Oster
It failed.
Commissioner Frazier
I would like to make a motion to postpone for 60 days.
Commissioner Oster
OK, I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Frazier and a second by Commissioner Jackson to postpone for 60 days.
The motion was approved
2:46:27 Clerk
We are on item number 34, which is Ordinance O-25-8-101.
It’s amending the Knox County Code Chapter 42, Article 2, Division Two, Section 42 through 53 Merit System Board of Directors – To revise in subsection C the qualifications for members of the merit system board to be eligible to serve if he or she has not previously been employed by the Sheriff’s Office within the five years instead of 10 years preceding his or her appointment and to remove the requirement that a person is not eligible to serve on the merit system Board if any member of the person’s family is or becomes employed by the Knoxville Police Department, this cements. Ordinance O-90-9-111, adopted September 10th, 1990. Ordinance O- 91-8114, adopted November 25th, 1991. Ordinance O-95-4-101, adopted April 24th, 1995. Ordinance #O-19-1-101, adopted February 25th, 2019 And ordinance O-22-6-103 adopted July 25th, 2022. This is on second reading.
Commissioner Oster
All right. I’ve got a motion on the floor by Commissioner Frazier to postpone for 60 days, and a second by Commissioner Jackson. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor aye, all opposed. The ayes have it. We have no one for public forum other business.
Everybody send Drew your best wishes. She is under the weather. And thank you Sharon for going solo. You took care of us tonight.
Happy birthday to Commissioner Lee and Commissioner Russell.
Don’t forget October 8th through the 10th is our fall conference and we are hosting, so if you can be there at some of the events that would be great.
I have got a form and the Sheriff’s Office is doing Officer Blakely’s Memorial Golf tournament. They are still in need of whole sponsors or teams so if you guys want to grab one of these and take it if you know somebody who wants to host A-Team or if you just want to do a hole sponsor, but they’re still looking for hole sponsors, so that would be helpful.
I’m sorry if I was snappy tonight, there was just a lot coming at me at one time and I just need everybody to use the microphone.
I’d like to just leave you with this. There’s no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit by President Reagan.
Do I have a motion to adjourn? Second.
We are adjourned.