By now you have probably heard that the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen completed the third and final reading of the city 2010-2011 fiscal year budget last night.

After months of haggling, debating, and for the most part not understanding a $168.00 per year garbage tax proposed by Mayor Troy Bisby, the BMA ultimately decided to shelve the tax.

The tax was never a good idea the way it was proposed by the mayor in the first place and by the way it was presented. A number of BMA members obviously never grasped the concept, as evidenced by their statements and votes. If board members don't understand an issue than it is safe to assume most citizens don't.

Those that pushed the tax, primarily Bisby, Mike Norris, and Greg Sandlin, will ultimately have to answer to the citizens should they decide to run for re-election. Mike Stanton supported the tax up until last night.

But as is true with any significant issue there were winners and losers last night. Maybe not long-term, but certainly short term some came out looking good and some not so good.

The BMA as a whole looks really bad today as they wasted a whole lot of time debating an issue that they obviously didn't fully understand. They passed it without knowing how to bill it, and ultimately that ended up being the reason they used to kill it.

The mayor took the hardest hit as he basically had to admit defeat on a concept that was entirely in the beginning his idea. He attempted to place the blame on the Tullahoma Utilities Board for not being willing to bill the tax, but what organization wants to bill a new tax they have nothing to do with while at the same time trying to sell a product to the same customers.

Why anyone ever expected TUB to get involved in this fiasco I don't understand, and that is not a defense of TUB. As a taxpayer who is funding the LightTUBe service I don't want any extra negative attached to TUB as I want that service to succeed so they can pay off that loan.

TUB was a winner I believe, because their unwillingness to bill the new tax helped kill it, which it seems most citizens were in favor of killing it. TUB takes a lot of negative hits but it appears on this issue they came out looking pretty good to most folks.

Those that own houses worth in excess of $225,000 were losers as the property tax rate was restored to the state-suggested level of $2.29 per $100 of appraised value. Their taxes went up as compared to what it would have been if the garbage tax had passed and the property tax had been set at $1.99, which was the proposal before Tuesday night.

Those that own houses worth less than $225,000 came out ahead as far as city taxes go, since their rate dropped from $2.44 to $2.29 and there is no additional garbage tax.

Of course we are all going to pay $.28 more in county property taxes, but the county tax hike ultimately allowed the BMA to not have to raise property taxes, which they almost certainly would have done had there been no county tax hike.

All in all there was a lot of wasted time and ink on an idea that was ill-conceived to begin with. Hopefully future editions of the BMA will be willing to take more time in thinking and planning issues out more thouroughly than this one was thought out.

Pondering the City Budget
August 27, 2010

Finally got a chance to watch the entire Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting from last Monday, which featured the second reading of the City of Tullahoma 2010-2011 fiscal budget.

Although the meeting was somewhat chaotic at times, and there were few specifics on total numbers, I think I got the highlights:

The 28 cent property tax increase by the county resulted in some $490,000 additional dollars coming to the city. The school system requested a $174,000 increase in its operating budget, but was only given $124,000 extra as the other $50,000 went to fund charities and non-profits.

The $310,000 left from the $490,000 after the schools got theirs was put towards paving, fixing Grider Stadium, and paying off something called the Halls Tax.

The property tax rate was lowered to $1.99, which I think is a very good thing. Of course that rate is offset by a new $14.68 garbage tax, so those two things come out even if you live in a $224,000 house.

If you live in a less expensive house then your city tax rate just went up. If your house is worth more than that then your city tax rate just went down. Everybody's rate went up from the county.

The city was bailed out in part by the county increase, although there are still significant cuts from last year's budget. Times are tight with no relief in sight and I think the BMA did a pretty good job with what it had to work with.

There is still a third reading scheduled for August 31 and everything other than the property tax rate is still on the table and can be amended. There were third readings in the past where significant changes were made, but during the last five years or so few changes have come on the final reading.

All Things Political Are Subject to Change
August 13, 2010

While pondering the subject of taxes, which is a really broad subject considering we pay garbage taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, retirement taxes, business taxes, death taxes, state taxes, county taxes...

You get the idea. As I watched the Tullahoma Bored of Mayor and Aldermen discuss the 2011 fiscal budget last Monday night, which included yet another round of opinions about the garbage tax and its relation to the budget, something occured to me.

Remember that as the BMA passed the new tax, they did so with the understanding that they don't yet know how they will bill the new tax. Although the method of billing seems to be only a procedural matter on the front end, the truth is the method of billing will determine who pays the tax in anything other than a single-family dwelling owned by the folks who live in it.

Who pays the electric bill in most rental houses, apartments, and duplexes? The renter does. Who pays the property tax bill in those same residences? The property owner. Are you following me now?

Seems as if that little technicality is the determining factor on whether the people who rent houses pay this tax or those that own rentals pay it. Renters are primarily low-income folks who can't afford to buy houses. Rental owners are almost always higher-income earners.

Now I'm not here to give my opinion as to who ought to pay this new tax, I just know that I have to pay it and I'm not especially happy about that.

Members of the BMA, however, have given their opinions about the tax. What they haven't given is an opinion about how it should be billed, leaving that up to 'staff' to decide.

What? City government staff is going to decide who pays a new tax? I'm not sure that is the best way for the BMA to go on this. If we are going to get hit with a new tax, we at least deserve to have the people we voted into office decide who has to pay it.

Now that is not a negative shot at city staff, in fact I doubt whether they relish the responsibility of determining who pays a new tax. Perhaps the city administrator will consider returning the issue to the BMA to determine how its billed (who pays it).

Or maybe one of the sitting Aldermen will take the initiative to include the issue on the BMA agenda soon and encourage his fellow members that it is the BMA's responsibility to decide who pays a new tax, not city staff's.

Or maybe neither will happen and city staff will decide who pays the tax. Either way, this whole issue has been handled very sloppy and its a good bet that voters won't forget it come the first Thursday in August of next year.

Now about this property tax issue...

Playing Devil's Advocate
July 28, 2010

Seems I always get twice as many visitors to my little corner of the wired world on days that follow a meeting of the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen. If I learn nothing else from why that is, at least it shows me that you know what one of my real passions is - our city.

I have really tried to stay away from the Garbage Tax issue on here because I have let BMA members know my feelings against the concept. Since, like all but six of you I don't have a vote, that's about all any of us can do. Now that the deed is done we can move on.

Both readings of the ordinance ended with the same vote - Bisby, Norris, Stanton, and Sandlin in favor and Blanks, Eads, and Mathis against. Nobody changed their mind over the two weeks since the first vote, and I think you could spin that fact from either side pretty effectively.

Those who look at it from an alderman's side would seem to be satisfied that all seven had a strong opinion in one direction and they weren't swayed by the significant lobbying that I'm sure has taken place over the last two months. They made up their minds and they voted consistently.

Now if you are a citizen who is against the garbage tax, and you attempted to pursuade an alderman to change his vote, and you know others who did the same, then you've got to be concerned that you no longer have a voice.

However, never lose site of the fact this is a republic and we elect officials to vote on issues. We seldom get a vote on issues, which is actually what I thought should have happened on the garbage issue from the start, a referendum, but evidently we just didn't have time.

Finally, if you are in favor of the new tax then you're happy today. You got your tax. I suspect the happiest people are the ones who own the most commercial property, since their hope is that the property tax is going down. Those who live outside the city and own a business inside really got a double shot of good news. Their business property tax might go down and they don't have to pay the garbage tax.

You see it appears that one key ingrediant missing from this debate from the start was a clear explanation of what the new tax would do in relation to our budget. I give Mayor Pro-Tem Norris a lot of credit in that he focused on the 'revenue neutral' issue early and did his best to explain it, but sometimes great points get buried in BMA meetings by a whole lot of chatter.

There was consistent talk of lowering the property tax to help off-set some or all of this garbage tax from the beginning. The problem was the mayor came out early talking in terms of a possible 10 or 15 cent property tax reduction to go along with his proposed tax. People figured out pretty quick that the numbers just didn't add up.

But Norris was on track. If the board drops the property tax 35 cents on the first budget reading, as they should to make this truely revenue-neutral, then they begin not with the 2.29 the state has set, but with 1.94 as a tax rate, and they begin building their budget from there.

There are positives that could come from the trash, brush, and limb business being separated away from all other city activities. I said could. For one thing the system would have to continue operating for the $1.2 million that the new tax raises. That potentially could keep costs down.

There are pros and cons to almost everything and the garbage tax is no different. The overriding factor above everything else for me is the matter of adding a whole new tax. Once a tax is put into law, much like once a government employee is hired, it becomes very difficult to step back.

Here is the reset. Our old tax rate was $2.44. Because the state says the value of our property has gone up overall as a city, our new rate has been set at 2.29. The state says that 2.29 this year will bring in the same amount as 2.44 last year. That is a similar adjustment that is supposed to be 'revenue neutral'.

But now that the equipment, personnel, facilities, etc that are used for garbage, brush, and limb pick-up will be paid for by the garbage tax; that should take $1.2 million away from our expenses. To match the new revenue there is an expense.

BMA members have consistently said we were about $500,000 short in our proposed budget. All things being equal if we leave the tax rate at $2.29 then we will cover that shortfall and have $700,000 to put towards paving, etc.

If we lower the rate as the mayor suggested then we cover the shortfall but we don't have anything left to go towards less-operational items like paving and facilities.

I'm intentionally not getting into the whole, "if your house cost this much your taxes go down and if not they go up" issue. That has been well documented and explained. Any flat fee for anything always punishes the one with less money, whether its going to the swimming pool, playing organized sports, or running a traffic light.

Look, I'm just thinking out loud here about the different angles of this issue, but it just seems to me that nobody, although Norris got close, really explained this tax completely in regards to how it works where people could understand it. I'm not sure folks would like it even if they did understand it all, but at least there would be less emotion about it. Less talk about what's fair and such.

That is something missing from the BMA right now, someone who can explain complex issues clearly. As board members move into budget talks it will be interesting to see how much, if any, they are willing to adjust that 2.29 property tax rate.