By Lee Weyhrich
Staff Writer
The Clay City Council voted 4-2 to take the earmark off the 5-millage ad valorem property tax originally passed July 21 of last year, possibly taking a Clay city police force or city school system off the table.
Councilman Bo Johnson proposed a resolution to amend the tax Monday night, by taking the earmarks off. The proposed resolution was not on the council’s agenda prior to the meeting.
“When we approved the 5-mill property tax, we earmarked it with a couple of things, and personally I would not have went that direction, so I’d like to propose that we remove that earmark so that that money is freed up for if we want to use it for those things or if we want to use it for other areas, we’ll be able to put it to whatever the best use is,” Johnson said.
At the time the tax was originally passed, councilmen Ricky Baker and Kevin Small proposed using the money for a specific goal rather than placing it in the general fund. Baker proposed the money be saved while the feasibility of a city school system could be researched. Should the school system prove impractical, he added a caveat to save the money for the creation of a city police department.
The council voted 4-1 at that time to add the earmarks, with councilman Ben Thackerson being the opposing vote.
Mayor Charles Webster and City Manager Ronnie Dixon hoped the money could go into a general fund to help cover operating expenses, expand municipal services and put into a contingency fund in case of emergency. The mayor stated the current school system was not what it should be and placed his support towards a school system if it proved feasible.
“I think we could do a better job than what the county does (with education) because they’re focused on a lot of schools,” Webster said at that July meeting.
In the mean time, Jefferson County Schools Superintendent Craig Pouncey began addressing some of the mayor’s and council’s complaints. Pouncey took office in June and began meeting with Clay officials not long after the initial tax vote in July.
In an August meeting last year, a last-minute item – Ordinance 2014-07 – appeared on the council’s agenda attempting to change the earmark for more general use to, “support the contract for providing five Deputy Sheriffs and support through grants issued to the Clay Elementary School, Clay-Chalkville Middle School, Clay-Chalkville High School.”
At that time Baker voiced his concern that passing a tax based on one set of criteria, and later changing it, set a bad precedent.
“The way it is worded right now (in the proposed ordinance) I think changes everything we voted for last time,” Baker said at the Aug. 4, 2014 meeting.
The mayor cited Pouncey’s commitment to Clay schools as being one of the reasons behind the change, but Baker remained unconvinced.
“I’m not going to change the vote because some man down in Homewood says some nice words and says, ‘I promise I’m going to help you,’” Baker said. “I’ve heard it before. They’ve promised before.”
In the September 2 meeting last year, the council held a work session to discuss the 5-mill tax, at that time Webster said that he would like for the council to determine their priorities, and that he would like to hear from the community regarding their wants and needs. It was then determined the discussion would be resumed in six to eight months.
That wait-and-see holding pattern officially ended Monday when, with little discussion and no public input, the council voted to completely remove any earmarks from the tax.
An obviously upset Baker objected.
“I feel like this decision has been made before we ever got here myself,” Baker said. “That’s just my opinion – I could be wrong. We debated this, we went over it for a very long time, and now we’re going to announce it – not even put it on the agenda – and we’re going to announce it. We’re going to change it at a meeting? I think it is wrong. If you are going to do it, do it right. Put it on the agenda and put it up for debate.
“When we first voted, a public hearing was held to enact the tax. People came and expressed their viewpoint,” Baker added in a phone interview. “We voted on the tax and put conditions on it. If we’re going to change it, I believe there should be a public meeting.”
The mayor stated he was against the earmarking of the funds from the beginning, and by opening up what the funds could be used for, a certain portion could still go into a contingency fund for a police force or school system in the budget.
Johnson said he made the motion because on the night the ordinance was originally passed and earmarked he was in the audience thinking it was a bad decision by the council.
“That’s not against looking into a school system or looking into creating a police force, (but) to me that was just a bad idea from day one,” Johnson said. “That’s not to say that we can’t budget the money for those things if that’s what’s determined as the best course to go, but we’ve got a whole lot of other things going on in the city and a whole lot of things that could potentially use that money.”
Johnson went on to say that a school system was a “pie in the sky” thing for the distant future when there are other things necessary right now.
Small said he believes a school system should be a top priority for the council. While he acknowledges the county, under Pouncey’s direction, has made great improvements, he does not believe the long term track record of the county is enough to place full trust in them.
Small believes having the money earmarked gives the council leverage in negotiations with the county.
“Our school system is so different than what it was when I bought my first house in Clay,” Small said. “When I bought my first property in Clay my property values went up significantly because of the schools, but now that’s kind of flat-lined, and I feel like the county has not paid as much attention to its schools until this last year it seems.”
Small and Baker both voted against the change to the ordinance.