County Commission Tables Motion to Approve SROs Until Further Study

A member of the county commission Monday night wanted the full body to vote on the hiring of four School Resource Officers in the DeKalb County School System but the move was blocked for now.

Second District Commissioner Jack Barton made the motion, saying the county commission should do everything it can to protect our children and secure our schools. Fourth district member David McDowell seconded the motion.

Sheriff Patrick Ray, in a previous county budget committee meeting, had requested that funds be budgeted next year for the School Resource Officers. If approved, the new SRO's would be assigned to the four schools that don't already have them.

Normally, the county budget committee, in formulating a new spending plan each year, considers all funding requests first and then decides whether they be included in a proposed budget for the entire county commission to consider. In this case, Barton wanted the county commission to approve the hiring of the SRO's and to direct the budget committee to come up with a way to pay for them. "I would like to make a motion tonight to address the need for the school resource officers of the four schools that do not have them. About two months ago Billy Miller, who is a TBI agent, school board member, and parent came and gave us a pretty informed presentation. At that time, he and the sheriff addressed what SRO's do within the structure of our schools and how much of an impact, even beyond an armed guard, that they could be. Since that time, we have discussed and begun to gather figures for our budget process and we are underway with our deliberations. It will be a very tight year. This subject matter is a very grave one because I know as a parent, I want to make sure we as a legislative body have done everything we can to protect our children, secure our schools, and develop a bond of trust between our children and law enforcement officials who would serve as their resource officers," said Barton.

"As a member of the budget committee I feel pretty strongly that this matter deserves to be heard and voted on before our full body and not just within the budget committee. At our present estimation, sheriff Ray said the first year will cost around $249,209 or around five and a half to six cents of property tax. In the second year, that cost would drop to $143,669 or about 3.2 to four cents on the property tax, given our present collection rates and what we set a penny at last year. The schools are doing a lot to improve their security infrastructure by installing cameras, doors, and more secure methods of access. We can and should help in these efforts. No community should have to endure the loss of life that other communities have experienced when we have the ability to buy this kind of insurance to potentially safeguard against violence in schools. My motion would be to vote on the hiring of these four additional officers so that each school has one and advise the budget committee to plan for that expense in the coming deliberations," said Barton.

Some members of the commission along with County Mayor Mike Foster, apparently caught offguard by Barton's motion, felt that it was too early in the budget deliberations to be making a decision on this without first considering the costs and the impact on next year's budget.

"If you approve the hiring of them (SROs) you've got to fund them. How do you propose to fund them?," asked Foster.

" We know how much SRO's are going to cost. I propose for us to have the $249,000 allocated in the budget," replied Barton.

"But from where does it come?. We've got to have a (funding) source," said Foster

"The source may very well be, even without the resource officers, that we would have to have some tax increase. We're facing that with the Affordable Health Care Act," answered Barton.

"I think if we're going to vote to do it, you've got to have a funding mechanism. I don't think you can just say we're going to hire them and not have some way to fund it," said Foster.

"My motion is to advise the budget committee to plan for that. The budget committee is who sets the funding source and approves that to the full commission," added Barton.

Seventh District Commissioner Larry Summers made a motion that Barton's motion be tabled for now to give the commission more time to consider it. " I make a motion that we table this for further discussion. We haven't really discussed it thoroughly enough. Everybody knows where our hearts are. We just have to see how we can pay for these things," said Summers.

First district Commissioner Mason Carter seconded the motion to table.

The vote was 9-2 to table Barton's motion. Those voting to table were Mason Carter, Elmer Ellis, Jr., Bobby Joines, Jeff Barnes, Jerry Scott, Wayne Cantrell, Jerry Adcock, Larry Summers, and Marshall Ferrell. Commissioners Jack Barton and David McDowell voted against tabling the motion. Commissioners Jimmy Poss and Bradley Hendrix were absent when this issue was addressed.

County Mayor Foster said the issue would likely be brought up again at the next meeting in June. Of course, members of the county budget committee could still address it themselves at their own meetings.

DUD Ready to Deal with City on New Water Purchase Agreement

The DeKalb Utility District is apparently ready to accept the City of Smithville's latest offer on a new water purchase agreement with some conditions.

In April, city officials offered to sell water to the DeKalb Utility District in a new ten year contract at the rate of $2.20 per thousand for the first five years and $2.40 per thousand for the last five years of the agreement. The proposal, subject to approval by the aldermen, would take affect at the end of the city's current contract with the DUD which expires in early 2014. The terms of the deal apparently call for the DUD to purchase a minimum amount of water (approximately 22 million gallons) per month.

While the DUD still plans to build its own water treatment plant, it will apparently have to continue buying water from the city, at least until the plant is completed. With the current agreement between the city and DUD set to expire in seven months, a new contract must be in place by the first of the year.

The DUD is apparently prepared to pay the new rate as proposed by the city under a new contract, but doesn't want to be held to purchasing a minimum quantity. City Attorney Vester Parsley, during Monday night's city council meeting advised that the city stick to its minimum purchase requirement. "We had a requirement in that contract that they (DUD) had to purchase a minimum amount of water from us. They want to obviously not do that. Those rates were strictly contingent upon them purchasing that minimum quantity of water. It's up to the board (Aldermen), but under their (DUD) revision, if you went with that, they (DUD) would not have to purchase a certain amount of water which would not be in the best interest of the City of Smithville," said Parsley.

During Monday night's meeting, Secretary-Treasurer Hunter Hendrixson read a letter from Jon Foutch, manager of the DeKalb Utility dated May 8.

In the letter, Foutch wrote that "The Board of Commissioners of DUD has asked me to respond to your letter of April 2, 2013, and the proposed Water Purchase Agreement provided with your letter. I write to advise that DUD is agreeable with the rates referenced in the proposed agreement which specifically are $2.20 per 1,000 gallons for the first five years of the contract and then $2.40 per 1,000 gallons for the next five years of the contract. However, this agreement on the rates is contingent upon their being no minimum purchase requirements of DUD," wrote Foutch.

"As for the remaining issues of your proposed agreement, DUD believes that paragraph 9 should remain the same as was included in our proposed agreement which provides that DUD will be provided a chemical analysis from Smithville upon reasonable request. Also, DUD would recommend that paragraph 12 as included in our proposed agreement remain which would provide the basis for payment by the city should there ever be a need for the city to purchase water from DUD in an emergency situation. We believe that it would be prudent to include a provision that would specifically set forth the rate to be charged by DUD to Smithville in the event of an emergency," wrote Foutch

"Otherwise, the terms appear reasonable and, in fact, were as earlier proposed by DUD in their original proposed agreement. If you could please advise as to whether the Board of Aldermen have ever agreed to the proposed rates as mentioned, it would be most appreciated," wrote Foutch.

"I will ask Keith Blair (DUD attorney) to forward a copy of this letter to Vester Parsley (city attorney) and will await further communication on whether this is agreeable," concluded Foutch.

"Is this something we're going to need to have a workshop on to discuss?," asked Alderman Gayla Hendrix

"That depends on what the board (aldermen) decides to do at some future date," responded Parsley.

The city still has the option of appealing to the Davidson County Chancery Court the Utility Management Review board's recent dismissal of a DUD ratepayers petition once an order dismissing the petition has been entered. "I talked to the Nashville attorneys last week. The order has never been presented to the (UMRB) board. Until that order is submitted to the (UMRB) board and signed, we (City) have got up to sixty days after that to decide what we want to do," said Parsley.

After a day long hearing last month, the state's Utility Management Review Board dismissed a petition filed by a group of DeKalb Utility District ratepayers who were hoping to halt DUD plans to build the proposed water treatment plant. Board members said the petitioners had failed to meet their burden of proof that DUD rates or services provided were unreasonable. The hearing was held in Smithville at the DeKalb County Complex auditorium.

"Are you saying then that we should wait until we get the order before we make a decision?," asked Alderman Hendrix.

"I think it (order)will be forthcoming in June," said Parsley. "They (UMRB) meet again in June. As I understand it, the attorney for the comptroller's office requested the entire proceedings (from the April hearing) be transcribed before she drafted the order. In checking with them last week, that had not been completed but they anticipate it being done within a week or so. My guess is they will probably try to have that ready for the June meeting and submitted to their board for approval. Then our sixty days (within which to appeal) starts," said Parsley.

"At that time then we can decide whether to appeal the order and if we want to renegotiate a contract," added Hendrix.

Secretary-Treasurer Hendrixson said he would send a letter to Foutch letting him know that the city won't be making any decisions on a new water purchase agreement while it awaits the order from the April UMRB proceeding.