The headline in the Friday, November 30 Oak Ridger said Lobbyists earn 2-1 vote of confidence. The article about the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting the day before said that I voted against the “rehiring” of “the city’s federal lobbyist, The Ferguson Group of Washington, D.C., and the city’s state lobbyist, Bill Nolan & Associates of Oak Ridge, for another year beginning in January 2008.” That article was erroneous; fortunately the News Sentinel and Oak Ridge Observer both reported the story accurately and the Oak Ridger ran a correction the following Monday.
Mayor Tom Beehan and Mayor Pro-Tem Jane Miller voted to keep both contracts, but I (the third member of the committee) voted for Nolan’s contract to lobby for the city in Nashville but against Ferguson’s contract for lobbying services in Washington, DC.
Both lobbyists have delivered value to the city over the years they have been under contract. With the Tennessee General Assembly, Bill Nolan has helped city officials identify legislative initiatives of interest or concern to the city; he’s helped Oak Ridge make its case for fair treatment under the Basic Education Program (BEP); and he has helped the city be effective in presenting its message on behalf of several other priorities. A couple of years back he carried the ball for the city in the unsuccessful effort to get approval to raise revenues by charging “tipping fees” for DOE disposal of radioactive waste in Bear Creek Valley.
Meanwhile, in Washington the Ferguson Group has helped the city secure earmarked appropriations for local projects, including (for example) funding for part of the Melton Lake Greenway in a previous session of Congress and $2 million [correction: $4 million] for “West End” water and wastewater infrastructure in the current session of Congress. According to city staff, Ferguson has not only helped with making Congressional contacts (the classic definition of “lobbying”), but has provided valuable assistance with assembling documentation in support of Oak Ridge’s funding requests.
Seeing the value the city has received, I’ve had mixed emotions about the lobbying contracts. As reported in one of the papers, I commented: “This is a luxury in a city that has an awful lot of needs.” I do believe that lobbying is a luxury for our city.
In committee, I supported the Nolan contract because I perceive that the legislative process in Nashville is pretty much opaque to outsiders, and Nolan’s firm provides unique value to the city in penetrating the legislative system. I think it is likely that Oak Ridge will need that expertise this year to defend our interests with respect to education funding (the BEP again). The rural areas and the big cities, both of which know how to exert political clout in the State Capitol, want bigger pieces of the BEP pie, and the handful of medium-sized cities like Oak Ridge that stretch in order to fund education are likely to be on the losing end if we are not well-supported in Nashville. I anticipate a similar need for support on some other issues, so I think it is worthwhile to continue this contract, at least for the time being.
As for the Ferguson contract, the Oak Ridger accurately reported that I said: “I see the value of what they do, but I do intend to oppose it. I hope to find a way to accomplish what they do without this expense.” The federal items on the city’s proposed wish list are mostly funding for the kinds of projects that every city would like to get federal funding for, and the funding that Oak Ridge ultimately receives will depend largely on the size of our Congressional districts’ “share” of the pot of money that Congress divvies up for earmark (”pork barrel”) projects. Currently, I don’t see the assistance of a lobbyist as substantially increasing our likelihood of obtaining federal funds or the total amount of funding we receive. The city isn’t currently using its DC representation to help address our special situation as a federal government town — if that were to change, my viewpoint might change.
The whole Council will vote on renewal of the lobbying contracts at our next meeting on Monday, December 17.
A recurrent topic of discussion in Oak Ridge is the economy — and what should or could be done to improve local tax revenues.
There are plenty of ideas, of course, but it seems to me that the single most positive thing that could and should be done is to gain fairer treatment for the retirees of the contractors that operate the local Department of Energy (originally Atomic Energy Commission) facilities.
People who devoted their working lives to the local atomic energy facilities during the Cold War (and their surviving spouses) have been watching the purchasing power of their pensions dwindle away. Meanwhile, the pension fund that pays them enjoys a huge surplus (the balance is $800 million more than the actuaries say is needed to pay all current and future obligations to past and future retirees) and their former employers have not paid one cent into the pension fund since 1984, but Department of Energy officials have said publicly that it would be irresponsible to increase Oak Ridge retirees’ pensions to compensate for inflation.
Retirees aren’t asking for much — they only want their pensions increased to provide 75% of the buying power they retired with, and to make the “surviving spouse” pension arrangement for past retirees the same as it is for future retirees. As the retirees have been eloquently (and patiently) pointing out in various public forums (for example, in this Oak Ridger guest column that Joanne Gailar wrote last year), these changes would restore a modicum of fairness and would provide a windfall for individual retirees — and the communities where they live.
Our Oak Ridge contractor retirees must be treated better. Although it ought to be in DOE’s and the contractors’ best interest to do so (who would want to be recruited to work for an organization that treats its pensioners so poorly?), it appears that a political resolution is necessary.
I hope something happens soon — for our local retirees and for the local economy. The matter appears under “other issues” on the City’s State and Federal Legislative Agenda for 2007, but I think it might be the single most important federal issue for Oak Ridge right now. (What does the rest of the community think?)
On Thursday the Oak Ridge Municipal Planning Commission unanimously approved rezoning for that proposed hotel on the edge of Woodland (see my earlier comments at http://ellensmith.org/blog/?p=53), along with several variances, including some reductions in required setbacks from adjacent properties.
City Council will soon hear the proposal to rezone the property (from single-family residential to office, with a PUD) and amend the city’s land use plan to change this site’s designation from residential to commercial. Unlike conventional zoning, approval of a PUD means that the City is approving not only the land use but also a specific development plan, including building placement, parking lot layout, etc. The proposed development would also require City Council approval of driveway access to South Illinois Avenue (right now, the property has access from Potomac Circle, but if the development proposal is approved, that access would be closed). I expect that the Traffic Safety Advisory Board will review the proposal for driveway access before it is presented to City Council.
No Woodland residents spoke up at this Planning Commission meeting, causing newspaper reporters to conclude that the neighbors have withdrawn their opposition. However, the residents I talked with after the meeting say that they are still opposed. They figured that the Planning Commissioners had already made up their minds, so they decided to save their breath for the upcoming City Council meetings on this matter.
I have seen the site drawings, but I have not heard the staff’s and developer’s explanations of the current proposal, and I have not yet had a chance to ask questions. Thus, I still don’t have all of the information I need on this proposal, so my opinions are preliminary.
I believe there is a market for another hotel in Oak Ridge, and I am pleased to see the efforts that this developer has made to accommodate neighborhood concerns, but I have some serious misgivings about the proposal. Fundamentally, the property is not quite big enough for a hotel, so the building and parking areas would be located very close to the neighboring residential properties — too close for my tastes. Indeed, there would be no setback between the parking lot and one of the lot lines, placing the edge of the parking lot just a few feet away from the house next door on Potomac Circle. The hotel would sit farther away from the lot line by the other next-door neighbor house, but that single-story house could be dwarfed by the three-story hotel.
I wonder about construction impacts on the neighborhood, too. Given the small size of the lot relative to the footprint of the building, it is not obvious to me that there is enough space onsite for “laydown” of equipment and materials, and I want to know how construction access and parking would be controlled to limit adverse effects on the residential neighborhood.
Finally, I’m bothered by the proposed highway access — and the precedent it could create for other developers who might seek to build nearby. Traffic flow on South Illinois Avenue has been slowed in recent years by the proliferation of new businesses and their accompanying curb cuts and stoplights, and addition of more left-turning traffic on a wide street would further impede traffic flow and add new safety hazards. Although this curb cut would be directly across from the Outback Steakhouse driveway, it would add to the complexity of an already difficult stretch of road.
It’s “wait and see” time on this proposal. If I had to vote on this tomorrow without additional information, I would have to oppose it, but I have not heard the whole story yet.
The City has received word that ALDI is backing out of the deal to build a store in Oak Ridge, because of “numerous site issues and approvals that did not meet the corporate office approval process.
This is both a disappointment (a new grocery store on the east side would have been a very positive addition to the Oak Ridge retail scene) and a relief (I expect this news will help the neighbors sleep peacefully).
“Next time,” I hope that site-related challenges like those that arose with site drainage and access will be made evident early in the siting process, so that prospective developers can plan around them. Similarly, I hope that clear and accurate project information can be communicated to the community, so that city boards that need to issue approvals will not have misconceptions about the project.
Thursday’s Planning Commission discussion of ALDI dealt with an almost completely different collection of issues…
Since (as noted in the previous post) this property is already zoned for this use, the planning commission’s focus is on (1) meeting the extensive design criteria in the zoning ordinance and (2) finding ways to ensure that the development is as compatible with the existing neighborhood as is practicable.
Water. Neighborhood residents say that this parcel of land was considered greenbelt at one time, because it is the destination for drainage from a large area of northeast Oak Ridge. That history is no longer relevant, since the land is privately owned and zoned for business. However, nearby residents say there is standing water in the area (and on nearby streets and in their yards) after a heavy rain.
There’s a stream (actually a large ditch, but it’s large) running west-to-east across the site. To develop the new store, the stream would be replaced with a closed culvert. The USGS/TVA topo map shows this as a blue-line stream, but at Thursday’s meeting Steve Byrd said that the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation told him the agency does not classify it as a regulated water body. Thus, there are no legal restrictions on putting it in a culvert. However, culvert size and placement could be problematic. Neighbors say that the culvert under the nearby Sonic property (upstream from this property) is above the level of the ditch that is supposed to flow into it. I’ve seen that in other parts of town — basically, the stream has eroded down below the level of the culvert, so the culvert no longer functions the way it’s supposed to. This probably has something to do with the flooding reported by the neighbors. Byrd correctly pointed out that the ALDI development would not affect the situation upstream from Sonic, but I don’t think the city is justified in ignoring that kind of problem when it is brought to city staff’s attention.
Downstream, water from this site flows to Ernie’s Creek, which has a fairly straightforward course eastward to Melton Hill Lake. I’m not aware of any flooding issues on Ernie’s Creek that this development could worsen, but I could be wrong…
Screening between residences and store. Development plans call for a 20-ft-wide landscaped buffer (that is, a strip planted with trees) to provide a visual barrier between the backyards of homes. Neighbors asked for more evergreens than are shown in the original proposal, to ensure that the screening will be effective year-round. (Excellent point!)
Also, residents are concerned that the store and its parking lot may lead people to trespass in their yards (their yards now back up on an undeveloped wooded area, but that’s the area where ALDI wants to build the store). If I lived there, I would want a fence to ensure separation between the store lot and my backyard. The city landscaping standards call for either a vegetated buffers strip or a fence to screen between adjoining uses, not both. I think a fence is needed for physical security, in addition to the visual screening. I hope the developer will agree to provide a fence, even if city code does not require it.
Size of parking lot. Several people who have looked at the ALDI plans say that the parking lot seems too big. At 93 spaces, it’s about 36% larger than the city would require. Bob Walker, the developer’s engineer, says ALDI wants the extra space, which makes me wonder if they are expecting more customers than they have asked the city to plan for.
Sidewalk access to store. This one is mostly my issue. City ordinance says that if there is a sidewalk along a street adjacent to a new parking lot (for 100 cars or more), then pedestrian “connectivity from the entrance to the sidewalk should be provided.” This parking lot is slightly smaller than the ordinance specifies. However, this is a site abutting a residential neighborhood, and there are sidewalks on both Florida Avenue and Oak Ridge Turnpike. I think that the parking lot design should encourage people to walk to and from the business, by providing a sidewalk from Florida Avenue to the store. Walker was resistant to that idea, saying that ALDI sells in large quantities (like Sam’s Club), so people would not be able to shop there on foot. I’m skeptical of that. The ads for weekly specials on Aldi’s website do indicate that the store carries some large nonfood items (like Sam’s Club) and sells some items, such as frozen meat, in fairly large quantities, but the ads also show standard-sized items, such as single boxes of cereal. If this is going to be placed in a residential neighborhood, the neighbors should expect to be able to walk to it.
Loading dock placement. This is more of an issue for planning commission members than for neighbors. Because neighbors of the supermarket (currently Food City) in the Manhattan Place shopping center have complained over the years about noise from dumpsters and from delivery trucks that arrive at all hours of the night, the ALDI designers have worked to shield residents from the loading process by placing the loading dock on the side of the building facing Oak Ridge Turnpike. Some planning commissioners worry about the view motorists will see… I understand that concern, but I think the proposed placement on the “front” of the store probably will work out fine, particularly with the landscaping that the developer is promising…
ALDI (which I discussed in this earlier blog post) was discussed at two city board meetings that I attended this week. (The Oak Ridger has reported on the second of these meetings, Thursday’s Planning Commission work session.) I’ve learned a lot more about the proposal and the issues involved in its siting.
I have learned that the site proposed for the ALDI grocery store is zoned UB-2, which is a business zone that is suitable for this type of business. Thus, Oak Ridge city government bodies have no zoning decisions to make regarding this project. The City Council will, however, be asked to approve vehicle accesses to the site from Oak Ridge Turnpike and Florida Ave. (Note that the City cannot deny access to a highway from a legal lot that fronts on that highway; city government can only weigh in on the location and configuration of that access.) Before that Council action happens, the Planning Commission will be asked to approve a site plan, which includes specifications for things like setbacks from property lines, onsite traffic patterns, parking lot configuration, and landscaping.
Tuesday evening the Traffic Safety Advisory Board (a volunteer city advisory group whose meeting I had not attended previously) reviewed — and tentatively recommended approval for — the traffic access plan for the ALDI project. With a project engineer (Bob Walker of ETE Engineering) who lives in Anderson County and works in an office on the turnpike in east Oak Ridge, several TSAB members who live in northeast Oak Ridge, and a couple of neighborhood residents in attendance, the somewhat rambling discussion at this meeting produced a lot of insights on how people get from one point to another in east Oak Ridge.
The access plan calls for the main store entrance on Florida Avenue, where about 75% (estimated) of the customer traffic would occur and where semi-trailer trucks would enter to make nighttime deliveries. There would be no median cut on Oak Ridge Tpke. in front of the store, but vehicles could make right turns into and out of the parking lot at a new entrance/exit to built there. (Also, trucks would exit there on their way back to Nashville.)
Although the layout for the Sonic drive-in west of the site includes a provision for a frontage road to provide access to this site, city engineer Steve Byrd recommended against using that because the Sonic entrance could not safely accommodate a big traffic increase without a new traffic light, but he says there would not be a large enough influx of new traffic influx to meet TDOT “warrants” for a new traffic light at that location. (Also, it appeared to me — and Steve Byrd agreed — that the frontage road access might not be configured properly to allow a semi-trailer to turn in and out.) Byrd said it would be much safer to send most vehicles to the stoplight at the Florida Ave. intersection, where there is a stoplight, but no protected left turn. Although as a rule I like the idea of frontage roads in lieu of curb cuts, in this instance I must admit that Byrd is giving wise advice…
Nearby residents understandably don’t like the idea of new traffic, especially semi-trailer trucks, on Florida Ave. (I was particularly concerned to hear that the stop line at the intersection might need to be pulled back 10 ft to accommodate turning trucks.) Also, they are concerned that many people traveling to this store from the west would avoid turning left onto Florida Avenue (what Byrd and Walker assumed they would do) by traveling on Tennessee Avenue (or a smaller residential street) to a right turn on Florida Ave. Several TSAB members agreed with this opinion, and also pointed out that it often is difficult to turn left from Oak Ridge Tpke to Florida Ave.
After much discussion, TSAB voted to recommend the proposed access plan as a safe option for providing access to the proposed development, but some members had reservations, mostly related to effects on Florida Avenue.
Having observed the meeting, I will be interested in seeing how this recommendation is presented to City Council; I hope that Council receives a report that describes the board’s reasoning and concerns in addition to the final vote. However, past observations lead me to guess that Council will get filtered information that does not include much detail, if any.
I was surprised to hear that the ALDI company estimates that the new grocery store would have a total of only 400 vehicle trips per day (meaning just 200 customers a day), especially considering that they plan a 93-space parking lot, when Oak Ridge’s zoning code requires only 68 spaces for a store of the size they plan. It seems likely that the daily customer volume, and thus traffic impacts, would be larger than is currently being projected. That observation and the discussion at the TSAB meeting leave me thinking that the city does not yet have a good handle on how this new store could affect Florida Avenue. Also, after studying the site plan, I think the city could ask that semi-trailers enter and exit the property from Oak Ridge Turnpike (right turn in and right turn out), instead of using Florida Ave.
[To be continued -- this post is long enough already]
An important local issue that was largely overlooked in the brouhaha over Crestpointe is the controversy over the future of the Woodland neighborhood.
After City Council rejected (appropriately, I think) a proposal for rezoning to allow construction of a 5-story Holiday Inn Express hotel on a pair of residential lots between Potomac Circle and South Illinois Avenue, city planning staff initiated the “South Illinois Corridor Study” (included in the May 21 City Council agenda package) to determine appropriate land uses and development constraints in the event of future proposals for commercial development near South Illinois. The study report contains much good information and makes many excellent points. (For example, “traditional neighborhood development” is identified as an appropriate zoning classification for part of the area. I think that’s sensible, as Woodland is a traditional neighborhood in most senses of that word, but the zoning change would likely destabilize the area.) Woodland residents are understandably nervous about its main thrust, which is an expectation that commercial development will nibble away at the edge of this residential neighborhood. Long-time resident Mary Henderson encapsulated these concerns in a May 17 letter to the editor. The report has not led to actual rezoning (as residents fear), but it could do so.
Now that the Corridor Study is approved, the hotel proposal is back, in revised form. A preliminary concept was unveiled at a Planning Commission work session on Thursday.
The proposal would require several city approvals. Developers expect to bring it back for Planning Commission approval in August. Both Planning Commission and City Council would have to approve a zoning change (from residential to a business or office zone with a planned-unit development plan included in the rezoning). Also, Council would need to approve a change in the city land use plan and a new highway access for the property. The decisions are likely to be difficult.
The 3-story hotel design would have almost as many rooms (68) as the 5-story design proposed earlier, so it would have a larger footprint on the lot. The building would be set close to the lot line adjoining one of the neighboring houses, and the house on the other side of the site would be very close to the parking lot. Some good news is that the building would be no taller than the nearby TNBank building (it could be a little lower depending on roof design). The fact that the lot slopes down from Potomac Circle (South Illinois is about 8 ft lower than Potomac) would further reduce impact on Woodland. Also, the development planners have worked hard to design landscaping to screen the site from neighboring homes and from Potomac Circle. (There would be no vehicle access on Potomac Circle.)
Although it would be physically possible to provide vehicle access by a frontage road connection to the TNBank parking lot, the prospective developer says that TNBank has rejected that possibility, so the developer is proposing a new highway access from South Illinois Ave, directly across from Outback Steakhouse. That access plan is less than ideal — left turns into and out of businesses have often been difficult along that stretch of South Illinois, and new business accesses will only make it more difficult to turn safely there. However, the city cannot deny access to a street from a legal lot. It wasn’t yet clear how sidewalk access would be handled — sidewalk access is important in that area.
Spot zoning is undesirable, but this developer is working hard to accommodate the needs of neighbors, and the development might turn out to be compatible with the existing neighborhood. However, I do not want to have yet another access to South Illinois, and I have concerns about the way this hotel could overwhelm the small houses adjacent to it. These concerns won’t be resolved until we see a more detailed plan. (Stay tuned…)
An article in today’s newspaper reports that a company called ALDI, Inc. wants to build a grocery store on Oak Ridge Turnpike.
ALDI does not currently have any locations in the Knoxville metro area, but the ALDI company website and the Wikipedia article on ALDI have a lot of information about this business.
It appears to be different from anything currently in the Oak Ridge market. It calls itself a discount grocery store and has smallish stores (a 17,000-square-foot store is proposed for Oak Ridge) with limited hours. It seems that many of us thought “sounds like United Grocery Outlet” when we read about the proposal, but the two companies’ business formulas appear to be very different. UGO occupies existing storefronts and describes itself as a “closeout grocery merchant … [that] specialize[s] in handling inventory imbalances, closeouts, packaging changes, close dated product, factory seconds, and trial run products.” On the other hand, ALDI appears to prefer purpose-built stores (see image) 
and specializes in selling quality private-label groceries.
ALDI is a European company with some European-style approaches to “no-frills” supermarket operation — you need to deposit a quarter in a slot in order to get a shopping cart (the money is returned when the cart is returned) and they charge for grocery bags. They also carry some European gourmet-type items in their stores, although there’s less high-end merchandise than in the Trader Joe’s chain (not found in Tennessee), which apparently belongs to the same family that established ALDI.
Although I’d like a Trader Joe’s better (I’ve enjoyed shopping at Trader Joe’s in other cities), ALDI seems to be a business that would fill a vacant niche for Oak Ridge. It would particularly benefit those east-side residents who mourn the loss of the east-side Food City, including many folks who could walk to this new store.
However, the proposed site is undeveloped land (most of it already zoned commercial) that backs up to a residential neighborhood where people are concerned about inadequate screening of the noise and light from the nearby drive-in restaurant. Loading docks and grocery supply trucks would not be a welcome addition to the neighborhood…
Oak Ridge’s greenways network benefits from a small, but incredibly dedicated, group of volunteers. One of these is Tom Dunigan, who has unveiled a spiffy Google Maps-based interactive online guide to the Oak Ridge Greenways trails. (Check out the map! Click on a red pin to open a popup window with a link to a trail description, detailed map, or other information.)
I’m looking forward to seeing more pins appear on that map when the final phase of the Melton Lake Greenway opens up, linking the Melton Lake Park lakefront with the Haw Ridge Park mountain bike trail system. A few months ago I walked the trail route with city staff and Greenways Oak Ridge volunteers — the walk under the Edgemoor bridge and through the Haw Ridge area probably will become the best part of the Melton Lake greenway.
Pre-election financial disclosure reports were due Thursday, and the local newspaper has reported cash receipts (including loans) for each candidate and referendum campaign. Because loans are treated as “receipts” and neither in-kind contributions (donations of goods or services; sometimes these donations are large) nor expenditures are included in the article, the numbers in the article could be misleading, but they still attract attention.
Much of the attention this year is focused on the disclosure by Future of Oak Ridge (F.O.R.) which styles itself as a “grassroots group.” People had been asking me if I knew who was funding that group’s campaign in support of general-obligation bond funding for the Crestpointe shopping center development (I didn’t).
The Oak Ridger reported that F.O.R. had received contributions totaling $27,285, including $10,000 from an entity (Franklin Land Associates) that apparently is affiliated with GBT Realty, the prospective developer of Crestpointe. That donation — from an entity with a financial interest in the referendum results — is substantially smaller than the $159,026 that Crown American Properties gave to the “vote yes” side in the 2002 bond referendum, and which was disclosed on July 29, 2002, shortly before the election. (This would not happen in a candidate’s campaign. Tennessee corporations are prohibited from contributing to candidates, and candidates in local elections may not receive contributions over $1000, but there are few restrictions on donations to referendum committees.)
A scanned image of FOR’s full financial disclosure is circulating on the Internet. Commendably (and noteworthy for the extra work it created for the campaign treasurer), F.O.R. reported all contributions received, including those of $100 or less, which are not required to be reported.
While some of F.O.R.’s contributors are genuine “grassroots” local citizens, the F.O.R. report shows that the majority of the group’s funds came from other business sources that do not seem very “grassrootsy.” In addition to Franklin Land Associates (affiliated with GBT), major contributors include:
Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce — $2000
Bristol Park (Franklin, TN-based developers of the new apartments on Emory Valley Rd next to SAIC) — $2000
Len Hart (local real estate developer) — $1000
Scientific Technical Resources (one of the business interests of Nathaniel Revis, who is the apparent owner of the land where Crestpointe would be built) — $1000
Akins Crisp Public Strategies (Knoxville public relations firm) — $1000
Broadberry Development Company, LLC, Maryville (an affiliate of Rarity Properties, apparently established to develop Rarity Ridge in Oak Ridge) — $1000
Wackenhut Services, Inc. (federal government contractor that provides guards and other security services at local DOE facilities) — $1000
Rogers Group, Inc. (local supplier of quarried rock, asphalt, etc.) — $1000
Those contributions of $1000 and above accounted for fully $20,000 of F.O.R.’s $27,285 in total receipts.
============================
ADDED on June 4:
Some political jurisdictions don’t look so kindly on the idea of businesses with vested interests bankrolling political campaigns. A recent article in the New York Times reports that New York City is considering a proposal to set special contribution limits for people with city business, including contractors, lobbyists, and developers. That type of limitation would have interesting repercussions here, where some candidates and referendum campaigns are heavily backed by a roster of people who are perceived to have a financial interest (far beyond that of “taxpayer”) in the actions of local government.
