Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs to present budget
KNOX COUNTY, Tenn. (WATE) — Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs is scheduled to present his budget for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 on Monday.
The budget, if approved, will increase by $32 million, just over 3% larger than last year's budget of $1.1 billion. However, there will be no tax increase. Around half of this increase would go to general purpose school funding. School funding represents about 65% of spending.
Knoshville festival shares Jewish food and culture
General county employees would receive a salary adjustment of around 2% to help with increased cost of living. Around $87 million will go to Engineering and Public Works for infrastructure projects, about the same as last year.
The budget presentation is scheduled for 11 a.m. Monday May 5 at the City-County Building on Main Street. The event will be live streamed in this story.
FY25_Proposed_BudgetDownload
'Like a star up in the sky': Knoxville burger restaurant to close
The Knox County Commission will vote to approve or reject the budget. Last year, they passed Jacobs' budget unanimously.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
After US strikes on Iran, a narrow path to diplomacy
Advertisement Now, Iran has a choice to make. The country may be a theocratic autocracy, but it is not monolithic in its thinking or the conclusions its senior officials reach. That means that while the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will ultimately decide Iran's next steps, there is almost certainly a significant debate happening within the country. Iran has two principal options. If the regime ultimately concludes that it has to try to restore some amount of deterrence, even if that means it puts the regime at risk of survival, Iran could choose a robust response that escalates into a broader conflict with the United States in the region. The same would be true if the regime already thought it was at risk from continuing Israeli strikes or internal pressures by hardliners who are frustrated over Iran's poor performance during the war. Advertisement To do so, Iran could leverage some or all of its diminished but not destroyed capabilities. That could include targeting US forces and military assets at bases throughout the region, aiming to inflict maximum casualties and damage. It could also include leveraging Shia militias in Iraq to attack US personnel and interests. Another option would be to close the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint through which one-fifth of global oil and one-quarter of liquified natural gas passes through daily. And it could conduct asymmetric terrorist attacks against Israel, Jewish, or US targets around the world. Any one of these actions — let alone a combination — would likely compel a US response. But if the regime does not believe it's in imminent danger of collapse and recognizes the reality that its survival is far more likely dependent on being pragmatic in its reaction, then Tehran could seek to undertake a limited and narrow response that would be a powerful signal of Iran's desire to deescalate the situation and might produce an off-ramp to the conflict. Despite the threatening tone of President Trump's post on Truth Social that 'ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT,' it would be naïve to think that Iran is not going to respond at all, despite some limited historical precedent. In 1988, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini's famously accepted the 'poison chalice,' as he called it, of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 that ended the Iran-Iraq war. But that decision came after eight years of war — and this is not the late 1980s. Iran's nuclear, ballistic missile, and proxy strategies that took decades to build have largely collapsed in a short 15 months. And even if some Iranian leaders were inclined to capitulate to US demands, doing so would almost certainly risk undermining the current leadership's credibility, which could set the stage for it to be ousted by more hardline leaders. Advertisement Given that Saturday's attack was directly on the Iranian homeland, Tehran is likely to believe that its response will have to be bigger than its response to the killing of Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran's Quds Force, in January 2020. A missile attack on US personnel stationed at Al Asad airbase in Iraq resulted in multiple injuries of US service members, but no one was killed. An Iranian response, however, can be bigger in scope than in intensity. Attacking more targets but with the same goal of not killing US service members would allow regime leadership to boast to the Iranian population that it struck a critical blow against the United States, defending itself and the country, while not prompting the United States to undertake the kind of lethal attacks the US public would demand if Iran killed multiple Americans. There is still risk in this course of action — not intending to cause death or serious injury won't matter to the United States if it happens by accident. But if Iran avoids killing US service members, Trump could decline to respond and instead downplay the attack. But for Iran, which seems to wrongly but sincerely view the United States as being secretly behind most if not all Israeli actions, it will be critical that the conflict not only end with the United States but with Israel, as well. Trump should work to make that happen. His leverage has never been greater with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. The United States succeeded in striking the Fordo nuclear site that Israel seemingly couldn't — at least not via a higher risk mission, such as inserting ground forces. And while Israel's desire for regime change is more ambiguous now, Jerusalem's original two goals are clear: destroy or meaningfully set back Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Advertisement The strike has clearly set back Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, though to what extent may take weeks or longer to assess. Some reporting indicates that there was unusual activity at the Fordo site before the US strike that could be an indication that Iran moved much of its highly enriched uranium from the site. And Rafael Grossi, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has warned that it is unclear where all Iran's centrifuges are located. A few hundred advanced machines combined with highly enriched uranium and Iran could quickly enrich to weapons grade at a secret facility with a small footprint. Which is why diplomacy is still critical. Just as the United States should use its leverage with Israel to end its war with Iran, it should also use the now very credible military threat as leverage with Iran. The Trump administration needs to redouble its backchannel diplomacy using every legitimate intermediary — the Norwegians, Omanis, and Swiss all come to mind — to ensure the message is accurately conveyed that the United States is ready to continue diplomacy. Advertisement But Washington should be clear that if Iran is found to be engaging in nuclear enrichment or weaponization at a secret nuclear site, the United States will not hesitate to strike it again. In doing so, it can seek from Iran a real and verifiable diplomatic agreement that prevents Iranian enrichment but provides access to civilian nuclear power in Iran through the type of consortium that was under consideration before the war started. The US strike at Fordo significantly set back the potential for Iran to develop a working nuclear weapon. Now diplomacy is required to permanently eliminate it and avoid a broader war.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Alarm raised over increase in antisemitism
Advertisement There has been too much silence and indifference for far too long, which enables and emboldens this harmful hate and abuse. It's time for real support and solidarity and a rejection of the civic inertia that has left Jewish people unsafe, marginalized, and threatened in Massachusetts, New England, and across the country. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Noam Schimmel Framingham The writer is a lecturer in global studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Israel's punishing campaign in Gaza has to be taken into account In a Voice of America Advertisement Samantha Joseph's op-ed does allude to the 'elevated threat' to the Jewish community that the FBI links to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Regrettably, though, Joseph fails to acknowledge that in the 21 months since Hamas's brutal killings and kidnappings of Oct. 7, 2023, the Israeli government's grossly disproportionate punishment levied against the people of Gaza — a relentless assault viewed by many international legal scholars and human rights organizations as amounting to a genocide — has likely triggered the recent awful attacks on Jews. All of which tells us that Israel's ending the carnage in Gaza is what's desperately needed — for the people of Gaza, for the remaining hostages, and, frankly, for Jews everywhere. Michael Felsen Jamaica Plain BDS movement is a gray area between antisemitism, criticism of Israel Samantha Joseph is right to decry antisemitic violence perpetrated by supporters of Palestinian rights. No matter how one feels about Israel's attacks on Palestinians (and now Iranians), that does not justify attacks on American Jews. We all need to draw a sharp line between criticism of the government of Israel and antisemitism. However, later in her op-ed, Joseph blurs this line by calling the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel antisemitic. This movement is precisely an attempt to impose financial and reputational consequences on Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Contrary to to the claims of the movement's critics, it has nothing to do with antisemitism. Ken Olum Sharon
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mahmoud Khalil renews devotion to Palestinian freedom at New York rally
Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian rights activist, freed from Ice detention on Friday, returned to Columbia University on Sunday to renew his commitment to the cause of Palestinian freedom and opposition to both the university and the Trump administration. Khalil arrived back in New York on Saturday after being released from more than 100 days in detention in Louisiana by a federal judge who ruled that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional and ordered his immediate release on bail. Just outside of Columbia's gates and reunited with wife Noor Abdalla, Khalil thanked his supporters, legal team and 'to salute the courage of all students at Columbia and across the nation who had continued to protest'. Khalil made clear that following his release from detention he would battle what he called the 'shameful trustees at Columbia that are currently attempting to expel 15 more students and to suspend tens of others, basically conceding their future, their degrees and labor because they are not afraid to stand for Palestine'. The university, he added, 'would do anything and everything it can to ensure that the words 'free Palestine' are not uttered anywhere near it. 'But while we are here, Free, Free Palestine.' The crowd followed in a chant. Khalil went on to accuse Columbia of attempting to prevent the rally at its gates 'just so we cannot remind them that they fund the killing in Gaza' and he described himself not as someone who is violent, as he claimed he has been portrayed, 'but as a human rights defender'. Related: Mahmoud Khalil reunites with family after more than 100 days in Ice detention His address determines that Khalil, the most high-profile student to be targeted by the Trump administration for speaking out against Israel's war on Gaza, plans to sustain his criticism of the university for what activists consider Columbia's capitulation to Trump administration demands to curb antisemitic speech and threats against Jewish students on campus. 'If they threaten me with detention, even if they would kill me, I would still speak up for Palestine,' Khalil said after shortly after landing in New Jersey on Saturday. 'I just want to go back and continue the work I was already doing, advocating for Palestinian rights, a speech that should actually be celebrated rather than punished.' Khalil was sent to Jena, Louisiana, shortly after being seized by plainclothes US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents in the lobby of his university residence in front of his heavily pregnant wife, who is a US citizen, in early March. The 30-year-old, who has not been charged with a crime, was forced to miss the birth of his first child, Deen, by the Trump administration. Khalil had been permitted to see his wife and son briefly – and only once – earlier in June. The American green card holder was held by Ice for 104 days. Khalil was ordered to surrender his passport and green card to Ice officials in Jena, Louisiana, as part of his conditional release. The order also limits Khalil's travel to a handful of US states, including New York and Michigan to visit family, for court hearings in Louisiana and New Jersey, and for lobbying in Washington DC. Related: Relief and a raised fist as Mahmoud Khalil goes free – but release 'very long overdue' Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Bronx Democrat, said Khalil's ordeal was 'not over, and we will have to continue to support this case. The persecution based on political speech is wrong, and it is a violation of all of our first amendment rights, not just Mahmoud's.' The Trump administration has said it will appeal the order to release Khalil. 'This is yet another example of how out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining national security,' Tricia McLaughlin, the assistant homeland security secretary, said in a statement. 'Their conduct not only denies the result of the 2024 election, it also does great harm to our constitutional system by undermining public confidence in the courts.' The Trump administration claims it had the authority to detain and deport Khalil, arguing that his presence in the US is a threat to national security. A second charge alleges that he omitted details about his work history and membership in organizations on his green card application. Nina Lakhani contributed reporting
