Terry Frank
The financial story of Anderson County in the last three years has been one of stability and progress. For the first time since 2006, Anderson County was removed from high-risk audit status in 2013, and placed on low-risk status. That held for 2013, 2014, and 2015.
As we closed out the books on 2015, our Accounts and Budgets and Schools cheered zero audit findings in our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report by the State of Tennessee’s Division of Local Government Audit.
Through partnership of our Budget Committee and County Commission, we saw three consecutive years of growth in fund balance, improved cash flow position, and a commitment to raising the bar on dipping into the fund balance by requiring a supermajority approval (12 of 16 members.) In 2013, we raised the supermajority requirement to $3.5 million, in 2014 to $4 million, and in 2015 to $4.5 million.
We kept new debt to a minimum, and for two consecutive years also modified existing debt agreements to save taxpayer money over the life of the bonds without extending the maturity dates of the debt.
Because of improved financial performance that led to reserve and liquidity growth, in July of 2015 Moody’s lifted the negative outlook they had placed on Anderson County in 2011 for a “weakened financial position†after depleting General Fund reserves. Our improved rating from Moody’s came on the heels of a two notch increase from Standard and Poor’s from A+ to AA.
For the third consecutive year, increased cash flow and strengthened reserves meant no tax anticipation notes—or borrowing—to fund the operations of government. This translates to direct savings for taxpayers, not to mention a great scorecard for families, businesses, and industries looking to move here!
We also established, for the first time, a capital projects fund to begin instituting long-range planning and funding for capital projects or capital replacement in order to limit future debt, or crisis management that often leads to unnecessary tax increases.
Historically, the accounting structure of Anderson County has worked—and is ever marching toward improvement. Success is proven in the fact that of 95 counties in the State of Tennessee, Anderson County is one of a select group of only eight that consistently earns the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Association. (And none of the winners are ’81 Act counties.)
So with improved ratings from independent rating agencies like Moody’s and S&P, accounting and reporting awards, zero audit findings in 2015, debt savings and liquidity, why switch management systems?
Frankly, with the progress we have made, the proposed change is a massive step backwards for Anderson County. And little to no debate or discussion has taken place. Nor were the schools, other departments, or even other counties brought into the discussion.
The 1981 Act is a system designed for small, rural counties who have no centralized accounting system and limited resources—a fact proven by the average population size of the 23 counties using the ’81 Act being 39,755.
The 1981 Act was designed to centralize accounting by reducing political accountability at the ballot box, and replacing it with an ultra or supra-authority in the one position of finance director. By eliminating political repercussions for the office-holders, the hope was that counties could move to centralization and all responsibility would shift to a virtually unaccountable “finance officer.â€
There is a lot to discuss about the change to ’81, which is why I issued a notice of veto to Anderson County Commission.
Prior to Commission’s next vote on the topic on February 22, I will host a question-and-answer public forum on the 1981 Act in Room 312 of the Anderson County Courthouse at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16. The public is invited and welcome to attend. Such drastic changes to your county government, and the future of your county, deserve an open and transparent discussion.
Terry Frank is Anderson County mayor.
***
Note: The submitted letters and columns published in the Opinion section do not necessarily reflect the views of Oak Ridge Today or its staff.
Copyright 2016 Oak Ridge Today. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Mark Caldwell says
According to the UT Institute for Public Service, the County Financial Management System of 1981 (the 1981 Act referenced in Ms. Frank’s opinion piece) provides for the consolidation of financial functions and the establishment of a financial management system for all county funds handled by the county trustee. (Fee and commission accounts of fee offices are not handled by the county trustee and, therefore, are not included under the act.) The system is similar to that found in the 1957 acts; however, under this plan the county operates under one act rather than three. This system must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the county legislative body or a majority of the voters in order to be effective in any county.
I don’t quite see the problem with this decision and didn’t quite see any real justification in Ms. Frank’s opinion to keep the 1957 Act in place. The two-thirds vote has been given, and it will take less than that to override Ms. Frank’s veto. Welcome to the 80’s Ms. Mayor.