| The Blog Archives Blog Archives Pt. 2
March 10, 2008 There appears to be a strong move to proceed with the concept of moving the Planning and Codes Department to the old Coffee County Health Dept. building, which is now being called the Tullahoma Annex in some publications. I could suggest other names but I'll refrain from that for today. As you know I was in opposition to buying the building in the first place. However, at this point that is old news and no longer relevant. Now its ours and we need to do something with it. As the Planning Commission, and after that the BMA, approaches the budget cycle the first order of business is capital projects. Unfortunately for our city's long-term future I don't see a strong desire on the part of some BMA members to make any progress on a new Municipal Building or Police Department. Even if we began constructing a brand new facility today it would be a year or more before city government could occupy a new place. Therefore, it appears that moving the Planning and Codes Department into that old building is our best option going into tonight's meeting. I really hope I hear a better option. The other matter gathering momentum is the process that the BMA will take in order to approve a budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. I've read our city ordinances thoroughly, and it is clear in my opinion that the responsibility to create an initial budget to present to the board lies in the hands of the City Administrator. How it has traditionally been done in the past is irrelevant to me. Last year there seemed to be a breakdown in communication, and the entire board was not included as it should have been. I will stand firm on the grounds that we should do the budget process properly and in a timely fashion that is in the best interest of the citizens of Tullahoma.
February 14, 2008 In summary, the opinion regarding the Planning Commission clearly rejects the often-quoted belief that the Planning Commission is required to furnish funding options along with its annual listing of capital project priorities that it sends to the BMA. The AG clearly points out that is NOT a requirement of our Planning Commission. The second portion of this opinion deals with the Board of Education and whether it has the authority to include its capital project requests in the Planning Commissions list of priority projects. Clearly, at least according to the Attorney General, that right does not exist. Our city code references the BOE authority regarding buildings in this manner:
2-204. The release of this Attorney General opinion should help you, the citizen and voter of Tullahoma, to realize a couple of facts. One is that there have been times when you have been mislead by those who want you to believe we as a city are bound by certain guidelines when in fact we are not. The second general point to take from this is that our City Charter is unique. It is a Private Act charter. That means that all the state laws regarding other types of charters don't apply to us unless we specifically adopt them.
February 12, 2008 Considering the proposed City Charter changes that will extend Mayor and Aldermen terms to four years, allow for recall of elected officials, and require a five-vote super majority to raise property taxes all passed by a unanimous vote, it is expected the General Assembly and the Governor will approve those requests. When that happens then those items will go on the next election ballot box and you will have the opportunity to vote them up or down. Unlike many BMA editions before this one, we felt it not proper to change your city charter without giving you a vote on the matter. I think that's the right thing to do. The budget meeting schedule for the coming months was set, and hopefully this year's process will be much smoother than in recent years. Last year a number of items changed at the last minute and thus created a confusing third reading that resulted in some less-than-desirable direction for our city. Although thankfully some of that was later amended, it still proved to be a somewhat-confusing situation. This year it appears that some cutoff dates will be determined and some extra time will be allowed for BMA members to study the budget numbers. I don't see a negative in that.
January 29, 2008 Although I had some doubts going in about our ability to fully fund the proposed D.W. Wilson project, after hearing from our financial advisors and from you the citizens regarding that project, I fully support and voted to complete the project as planned. We must not be deterred in our willingness to invest in the quality of life of our citizens. I am committed to taking every step within our ability to continue to improve our facilities and services. Three proposed City Charter changes that came before the board were deferred for one meeting in order to put together additional options for voting on those changes. I see no reason not to allow you, the voters, to decide whether adding an additional year to the mayor and aldermen's terms is worth saving $18,000 ever other year. I really have no preference on the matter and I'm comfortable sending that vote to the people. The second potential Charter change is the issue of Recall. If board member terms are extended to four years, as is the case with school board members, then I believe it's reasonable to consider a recall option that would give the voters a chance to recall a sitting member of either board after two years. Currently there is no recall mechanism and voters are stuck with BMA members for three years and BOE members for four years regardless of performance. The recall option would at least allow for action every other year if citizens were so inclined. Again I'm comfortable putting that decision into the voters' hands. The final proposed Charter change is a resolution that will require five positive BMA member votes to raise property taxes as opposed to the current four. I believe in this one strongly and will gladly cast a YES vote when it comes before the board. It remains to be seen if this one will go before the voters. I can't imagine many of you voting against it if it does. At our previous meeting on Jan. 14 we approved a fourth Charter change to allow those who live outside the city, but own 50% of property valued at least at $5,000 appraised value in the city, to vote in city elections. This change gives nobody two votes, and it includes built-in protections including stipulating that only two potential voters are allowed for each property and each must own 50%. I believe those are sound protections and the proposed change is a positive one. This practice is extremely common throughout our state and eliminates a method of taxation without representation. The BMA really appreciates citizens who are willing to come to our meetings and express opinions about issues. Although we do receive calls and emails from you, and appreciate those, it sends a strong message when a number of citizens speak before the board during meetings.
January 28, 2008 The remodeling of the D.W. Wilson Community Center is on the agenda. The project was approved over two years ago for almost $1 million. About a year ago it was stated that the building surrounding the indoor pool needed to be replaced at a cost of $600,000. The BMA approved that amount. Yet nothing has been done on this project. Now we receive word that the bid has been opened and the cost is over $2 million. I fail to understand why we are just now opening bids. As with any capital project, the longer we wait to begin the project the more it is going to cost. Now the BMA is being asked to fund an additional $600,000. Considering there are other significant capital project needs in our city, are we prepared to spend that much money on that facility? I believe with the new price revelation that we should step back and re-evaluate this project. Perhaps there are other options available. Perhaps we should scale back the scope of the project. The BMA is prepared to vote on a charter change that would require five votes instead of four to raise your property taxes. Considering I ran on a platform to lower property taxes, which I followed through on in our last budget vote, I am in favor of this charter change. These issues will significantly affect the future of our city. As your elected officials we desire to get input from you when making these decisions. I hope to hear from you before our meeting with your opinions.
January 23, 2008 Although the agenda will not be released until Friday, there appears to already be a growing number of items to be considered. Among them are a number of city charter changes that could significantly increase the amount of influence you the citizens have on your government and your elected officials. One important initiative that I believe gives you more influence is the ability to Recall elected BMA or Board of Education members when their performance is deemed unsatisfactory. Right now you have no recourse but to wait until an elected official's term is over and then to hope to not see them re-elected. In the case of BMA members that is a three-year wait, while with BOE members it is a four-year wait. As we observed fully in the early and middle years of this decade, a lot of damage can be done to a city in three or four years. The initiative will make all elected official's terms four years and will install a Recall mechanism halfway through each term. Basically that means if 15% of the citizens don't like someone's performance enought to sign a petition, they can bring an elected official up for recall just two years into that official's four-year term. Another advantage to this proposal is that it will save the city the cost of one additional election every four years. That cost is now approaching $20,000. In summary, there will only be city elections every other year if this proposal passes the BMA with at least five votes and then passes through the Tennessee General Assembly. On Monday the BMA will also hear from the financial experts from SunTrust regarding our current debt situation and our ability, if any, to incur further debt. The BMA will decide whether to borrow money to finish paying for a platform fire truck that has already been approved and ordered, or whether to use existing reserves and perhaps some remaining bond money. My position is quite clear on this. If we have existing money to pay for a major equipment purchase such as a fire truck then I believe we should use the existing money as opposed to borrowing the money and then paying interest on it. The estimated interest on this truck is $250,000.
January 15, 2008 One important piece of legislation that passed by a unanimous vote was a recommendation from the Policy Committee that the city allow persons who own property in the city but live just outside the city to vote in city elections. They can only live in Franklin, Coffee, Moore, or Bedford County. They must own at least 50% of the property, and the property must have an assessed value of at least $5,000. Only two persons per property can qualify. This initiative will now go to the Tennessee General Assembly as it is a requested Charter change for our city. Many cities accross Tennessee have adopted this type of legislation, and it seems fair to those who spend their money in our city and pay significant city business taxes. Back in June of 2007 the BMA approved purchasing a much-needed platform fire truck. The request came through last night to borrow the money to complete the purchase. We seem to have enough money, or at least a significant portion, to pay for the truck out of our reserves. I expressed my feelings that we should not be quick to borrow money, and pay almost $250,000 in interest over the life of the note, when we potentially have the cash to pay now. It seems to save $250,000 in interest payments is a really positive thing! The matter was deferred until next meeting without affecting the purchase, which gives us time to better examine the best way to pay for it. The work session featured a really good discussion on the concept of having four-year terms for alderman and mayor. City elections would only be held every-other year on even years. The concept would save the city the cost of one election every four years, which right now is close to $20,000. I strongly encourage citizens to contact myself and other members of the BMA and express your opinion on this issue. This would be another charter change that would have to go before the state government, but I don't want to pursue it if citizens are against it.
January 10, 2008 It is obvious in the comments and suggestions that I receive on a daily basis that there are many citizens who possess excellent ideas about ways we can improve city government. It is also certainly a fact that the seven members of the city board cannot possibly know and see our entire city each and every day. There are problems, issues, and situations that you as citizens know about but that we as board members aren't aware of. My point here is to encourage you, Tullahoma citizen, voter, and taxpayer, to participate in improving your city by either coming to meetings and commenting or contacting your elected representatives when you know of an issue that needs addressing or have an idea that can improve our city. Also, be fully aware that if you want to know what happens during our meetings, what decisions are made and what points are debated and who votes how on what, then you really need to watch the meetings. I know many of you don't get our local access channel and there is not much you can do about that. I would encourage you, if you aren't able to watch our meetings, to visit this site periodically because I will make every effort to keep you updated on the results of major votes and issues.
January 4, 2008 As I head towards the home stretch of my first term as an alderman I am satisfied that I have made every effort to fulfill the trust that voters put in me when they cast their votes in 2005. Since then the city budget has been balanced, city property taxes have been lowered, Fiber to the Premises is on its way, school funding has increased, and we are closer to addressing both school and city capital project needs. Another area that has been positive is in new and existing business development. We have multiple new and remodeled banks, additions being built at a number of existing industries, a new retail environment coming on Jackson St., substantial airport improvements, and a push towards addressing Cedar Lane. Each of these important issues and developments are areas I addressed during my 2005 campaign. Although the road has not always been particularly smooth, and I have certainly taken shots from the local media, overall I have enjoyed the political experience and must now consider whether to continue. As the Board of Mayor and Aldermen prepares to enter its budget schedule, which will culminate in the passing of a 2008-2009 fiscal year city budget in late June, perhaps its time to begin considering potential options regarding capital projects. For instance, let's consider East Lincoln Elementary. The BMA, with great insight and determination, passed a budget last year that forced a substantial amount of money into the School Bond Sinking Fund. Indications today are that the payoff from that may be the ability to spend $6-8 million on school projects next year. The Board of Education has proposed building a new East Lincoln at a cost approaching $10 million. However, multiple builders and those who know about structures have led me to believe that the actual school building that houses East Lincoln is extremely sound. Perhaps we should consider determining whether we actually need a completely new facility there or not before we just accept that we need $10 million for that facility. What if we could add a new wing and gut the existing structure on the inside and rebuild walls and floors and add doors at a cost of $5 million? I don't know if its possible, but I would like to find out. As a city we can't forget the rationale for building a new West Middle, which was that the old building was uninhabitable. As you know that building is currently full of folks everyday. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, I'm just saying that the structure of the old West building, like the structure of the old South Jackson building, is very solid. The cliche' is true, they don't build them like they used to. Our city financial advisors have led us to believe that we could potentially borrow $10 million. Instead of just assuming that whole amount has to go towards a new East Lincoln, it would seem to be prudent to determine if there is a better way. Maybe only half would be needed for that project. If in fact we could get a nice facility for $5 million instead of $10 million, then obviously that leaves $5 million of potential additional capital projects. A new city hall/police department has been estimated at around $3 million. A new police department by itself would be even less. Maybe through this mindset we even have enough to re-open the THS auditorium. The point here is that we need to stretch every available penny in order to gain the most from our capital project potential. The reason we don't see these old buildings being torn down after new ones are built is because old buildings are really sound structurally, they just need remodeling on the inside.
December 5, 2007 The board of education shall have the right, with the consent of the board of mayor and aldermen, to either buy or erect such buildings for school purposes as in its judgment may be necessary to carry into effect the intent and purpose of this division, and in either the erection or purchase it shall look well to the healthfulness of the locality and the ample ventilation of the buildings and rooms. Now I wouldn't claim to have a clue as to where the local spin machine gets its legal advice. As evidenced by the multiple untruths it has advocated recently regarding the law (remember the Planning Commission and its role in providing funding sources for capital projects), it appears that there is no legal advice. It appears the mode of operation is to make it up as you go. As evidence, the recent editorial which says, "The School Board does not need 'authorization' from the aldermen to undertake a school project with school funds, despite what some aldermen may think", appears to me to directly contradict the above-quoted law. As citizens it is important to remember that there is often a huge gap between what is the truth and what is spun to you three times a week. Most often it is as easy as going to the city website and looking at the Code of Ordinances section. My point here is to show that the law is what it is. What is good for some is bad for others. You or I may not like particular laws, or we may not think that a certain law is a good law, but that doesn't change the fact it is still the law. As was the case with the aforementioned Planning Commission issue, the spinsters seem to think if they repeat something enough times then that makes it fact. The truth is that no matter how many times they repeat something, if its not true then its not true. I hope the school system chooses to have the design work done on East Lincoln, so that the city may then have a clear idea of the expected costs. After all, that was the purpose of having the design work to start with. Thanks to the critical decision four BMA members made during budget debates we have an excellent chance of getting this school built in the near future. Hopefully, those that don't want to see that success transpire will be defeated on this issue.
November 29, 2007 The board approved a number of items associated with recommendations from the Policy Committee, which originated with the Grundy St. Land Sale Review Committee, of which I am proud to have been chair. These changes strengthen our government by defining clear direction should a situation arise resembling the landmark land sale issue. These items, which are an attempt to correct some of the gaps that led to the Grundy St. Land Sale, passed on both readings with only the mayor voting no on any of them during either of the required two readings. The mayor also voted not to accept the GSLSRC report when it came before the board. Also, the BMA took very positive steps on the hopes that a new East Lincoln Elementary will be a possibility in the immediate future. The discussion we had on Monday was enlightening, and showed this session of the BMA is much more capable of civil discussion and debate than boards during the last few years. Not only did we authorize the school system to fund the design work for the much-needed facility, but we got a report from Alderman James that suggests that funding may be available in the coming year to actually build the facility. I appreciate his efforts to lead the board to insure additional funds go into the sinking fund. Considering that a new East Lincoln has been the top priority of the school system during my entire time as a BMA member, I expect it to jump at the chance to begin the process of making this concept become a reality. Everyone should be excited about the opportunities before us. "I'm glad to know the city is showing concern and understanding about the needs associated with East Lincoln," Tullahoma City School Director Dr. Dan Lawson said. "But I continue to be disappointed in the lack of funding that would allow the project to come to fruition." Just two years ago the voters of Tullahoma were voting whether to approve borrowing the money to build new schools, with the proposed projects estimated to cost almost $20,000,000. That was voted down. Funding for any school projects was effectively dead. Now we have the chance to build the top priority of those projets, and we have the reserves to fund the design. The BMA has lowered property taxes, held its overall growth to a minimum, and constructed a budget that forces additional revenue into the Sales Tax Sinking Fund. Considering the progress on getting more funds into the STSF without a tax increase, plus the authorization to begin the design phase of a new East Lincoln, I think the direction of the BMA is closer than its been in years to funding a school capital project. The difference is instead of spending all our time talking about the need for items like East Lincoln and a new municipal facility/police department, the current majority on the BMA is working hard to create ways to actually fund these projects. How can it be said that the BMA majority is not doing far more than recent boards to actually get in position to fund some real capital improvements? The facts speak for themselves. I am comfortable and confident in my votes Monday night on this issue. In fact, as my first term heads into its home stretch, I feel satisfied that I have followed my instincts and voted on each and every issue with the majority of all citizens of Tullahoma as my top priority. It should be obvious that the BMA is committed to building a new East Lincoln. The efforts to make that happen will continue over the next few months. I hope that we won't be in the same place in three months, but that the design work will be in process and we'll be moving towards construction. The feedback I receive from you, the voters, has been overwhelmingly positive, and I appreciate every email and phone call. Keep them coming. I also welcome those who have opposing viewpoints to contact me and let's discuss the issue or issues that we don't agree on. My goal has never been to please everyone. It has always been to do what I think is best for the city I grew up in and was educated in and have chosen to spend the rest of my life in and raise my children in.
November 26, 2007 I say pretty smooth because it appears that most board members have taken the stance lately that its better to just claim your stance and make your vote than to try to persuade others to change their stance by saying the same thing 10 times. It seems we may be on the verge of accomplishing some things that seemed almost impossible just a few short years ago. I think there is a chance we can build a new East Lincoln without a tax increase, but in fact with a tax decrease, which we had just last year. Up until this board took its strong position on its use of the additional sales tax revenue, the chance for a new school to be built without a tax increase seemed remote. Don't be surprised though if that is exactly what happens.
November 13, 2007 Changes to the way the city does business continued as a number of the recommendations from the Grundy St. Land Sale Review Committee continue to work their way through. The Policy Committee agreed with the GSLSRC for the most part and forwarded many of the suggestions to the board by way of ordinance. Most of the suggested changes, such as a mandatory one-week notification for meetings and the digital archiving of meeting videos, passed either by a 7-0 vote or a 6-1 vote. The mayor voted in the minority on a number of the suggestions, continueing a trend that has seen him consistently be on the short end of most votes in the past few months. Keep in mind that many of these suggestions came from a committee that he formed. Also remember that when the committee presented its report to the board for acceptance that he voted against accepting the report. The most curious vote was on the issue of how the city handles the buying and selling of land. The ordinance will help insure that another Grundy St. situation doesn't happen again. One of the more interesting possible changes is allowing non-residents to vote in city elections when they own property or a business in Tullahoma but live outside the city in Coffee, Bedford, Moore, or Franklin Co. I believe that is a solid concept that has worked in a large number of other Tennessee cities. My feelings are that two people, if both own 50% of said property, should gain the opportunity to vote. Keep in mind on all these proposed charter changes that they must go before the Tennessee General Assembly at its next session before they can become law in Tullahoma. That will take some time but will be worth it as many of these things will clean up some of the problems found in the Grundy St. land deal. Two areas that weren't considered Monday night but that are still on the front burner are our capital project prioritization and our determination of where we best fit as a board within Roberts Rules of Order. Those two issues will continue to be debated but will soon need to be decided.
November 2, 2007 I've been in Atlanta all week at training for Motlow College, where I've worked for 12 years. Just three days there and I'm so reminded of why I love living in Tullahoma. Down there it's too big and there are too many of everything. I guess I'm just a small town guy and I'm thankful I made decisions early in life to stay. The next few months are going to have a decisive influence on a number of fundamental questions regarding the future of our city. We have to make some choices, and no matter what choices are made there will be unhappy people as a result. I accept that everytime I vote, as I know my fellow board members do also. I'm in favor of finding every penny we can to place into the Sales Tax Sinking Fund to build a new East Lincoln. I've looked at all the projects, I've listened to everybody's input, and that's the decision I've made on that. We need to build it, and we should be able to build it without raising taxes. The same holds true with the municipal building/police department. I'm convinced it would take well over $1 million to make a dent in getting our current facility upgraded, and it still would just be barely adequate. With bond money and some reserves, we have money that could go towards that project. Even if we can't find full funding this year, doesn't it make sense to put the money back and build on it instead of spending it all on a short-term solution? It does to me and that's the direction I started on that issue, being the first to bring it up in the last few years, and that's the position I'm sticking with. We have had endless debate about roles and power and rules in the last few weeks. It confuses people as to what is really going on, and they don't seem to understand what the whole issue is about. I'll have to admit I ask myself the same thing sometimes lately. In the political arena I try to never take things personally. I understand that almost every member of our board has deep convictions and votes them, and I respect and admire that. Those that don't vote consistent with their stated positions I cannot respect. That has been quite obvious in recent weeks and I'm okay with that. Our role as a board is about guiding the overall direction of our city in a positive direction. We aren't qualified to be involved in day-to-day city operations and we shouldn't be. I think we've seen way too much of that in the last three years and it needs to end. Some really good things are going to come out of the Policy Committee that address areas I have been advocating since I came on the board. The recall and referendum issue is back and I still support that. The chance to tie a property tax increase to a super-majority vote of the board is also coming. We need lower property taxes, not higher ones, because that is a major consideration of potential businesses that are looking for a home.
October 22, 2007 Perhaps the one item that will take the most time and require the most discussion will come during our study session when we discuss capital projects. The purpose is to take what projects we started with last year, determine what has been completed or begun, and weed those out and establish our priorities for the coming years. I can assure you without hesitation that the top capital project in my opinion is a new East Lincoln Elementary school. I have been pretty consistent on this and although some would seek to imply that I have changed my priority, the fact is I never have. Just because there are other projects to be discussed doesn't mean I've changed my mind. My second priority is a new municpal building/police department. I believe we have gotten more life out of our current facility than we ever could have expected. Sometimes we must accept that something is just no longer useful and bite the bullet and make a decision. I'm ready to do that on our city government facility. Just one comment about the weekend's now-predictable editorials aimed at me. You are wrong and we will all be expecting a correction when it is shown you are wrong.
October 19, 2007 I wish I could report that we all came together and discovered the perfect solution to our capital project needs, but in reality that didn't happen. However, I believe it was a constructive meeting nontheless. There were things learned and things shared, and that is always a good thing between people and entities. The BOE reaffirmed its belief that a new East Lincoln Elementary is without question its top capital project priority. To me, even though I would really like to see a new auditorium because I believe that can be done quicker and will serve as a morale boost to the community, the BOE passion with which they seem to desire East Lincoln to be at the forefront was rather convincing. The cost estimate for the auditorium, even with the work that has already been done in-house, was placed at between $1 million and $2 million. There will be members of the BMA who will continue to push for the auditorium first, but after last night I would be wary of that approach, considering the motives involved. Without question the majority is concerned for the good of the children who attend East Lincoln, which by the way was THE ONLY elementary school to show an increase in attendance from last year. There was also discussion about the Sales Tax Sinking Fund, and how the BMA took steps in its latest budget process to begin insuring that future revenues be directed towards that fund. I would expect the BMA to continue that process during our next budget discussions. The estimated cost for a new East Lincoln was put at $8 million. There were various methods discussed on how to begin to position our city to accept a new bond issue of that magnitude. Of course as a member of the city board I must consider the entire city and its capital needs in context with the needs of the school system. Hopefully the work session is the beginning of a new era of cooperation between the two boards. That can only be the case if members of both boards cease the negative comments and commit to working towards solutions. I am making that committment and challenging the other 13 elected officials in our city to do the same.
October 15, 2007 On Thursday, Oct. 18, the BMA will meet with the Board of Education at 5:30pm at the BOE building on S. Jackson St. The focus of the work session is to hopefully begin constructive dialogue regarding capital project needs of the school system. I am still firmly of the belief that we should seek to find a way to build a new East Lincoln Elementary school as soon as possible. The key seems to be how effectively we can guide money into the Sales Tax Sinking Fund. On Monday, Oct. 22, following our regular meeting, the BMA will hold a work session on capital projects from a city-wide perspective. With the recent news that attempting to repair the existing municipal building/police department may not be in our best interest, we now are faced with a major decision of whether to build a new facility or not. These two work sessions should hopefully provide a clearer picture on where we are financially and what might be possible to accomplish in the coming year or two.
October 14, 2007 As the target of a number of nasty, mean-spirited attacks by cowards who refuse to put their name on editorials, I feel especially qualified to speak on the subject of the lack of factual information or journalistic balance that is present. For instance, just this past Friday I was the primary subject of a wide-rambling editorial that seemed to imply that there was a shifting of priorities on capital projects by myself and the Planning Commission. The entire piece, as seems to often be the case, was built on a false pretense. The false pretense was that I was bringing something from the Planning Commission in regards to capital projects. That was not the case, as the record clearly shows not one word was mentioned regarding the PC and my agenda item. There was no connection. The implication otherwise is totally false and made up. Also included in the latest slap at me was a bumbling attempt to make it appear as though I had changed my views on our city's top capital project priorities. Once again, that is absolutely false. When the Planning Commission assembled its priority list in March, 2007, my top three items were the THS auditorium, the municipal/criminal justice building, and East Lincoln. That has not changed. The most glaring example of misguided facts, or the lack of facts, is the continued statement that the Planning Commission is bound by law to present cost estimates when forwarding capital project recommendations to the city board. One method that responsible journalists often use, and even average papers usually include, is to quote the law that backs up those types of statements. The article says the PC now knows this particular law. WHAT LAW? I don't know why I seem to have become the target of a number of hateful editorials over the last few months. I could speculate here but then that would be lowering myself to their level, which I refuse to do. Let's just say that somebody must see me as some sort of threat or somebody doesn't like the fact that I call them on their mistakes or somebody is really petty or a mixture of one or more of the above. Today we learn that the mayor is attempting to imply that a member or members of the board directed the city administrator or the police chief to draw up a floor plan for a potential new police department. He attempts to tie his accusation, which has no basis, to the recent policy recommendations made by the Grundy Street Land Sale Review Committee. That is a pretty long stretch and yet another example of irresponsible journalism. Could any other member of the board get that sort of platform on such a hollow 'story'? If a board member doesn't like the direction the board is going then by all means that board member should emphatically argue his case during board meetings. The political process depends on those who have the ability to persuade others to their way of thinking. However, to simply throw out suggestions that somebody did something wrong without any basis to the press is a pretty weak method of accomplishing positive things for our city. Later in the same edition is yet another editorial, without signature, that picks up the same mantra as the mayor in implying that the recommendations made by the GSLSRC, which by the way still have to be filtered by the Policy Committee, somehow reduces the power of the mayor. This latest edition is yet another in a long series of occassions where our local press has allowed itself to be used by a single board member to advance the agenda of that board member before an issue even comes before the board. That is just bad policy by both the board member and the paper. The reason items such as the policy recommendations from the GSLSRC go to the Policy Committee before they go to the full board for discussion and a vote is so that hopefully any inconsistencies between the recommendations and our existing lawful structure can be reconciled. Shouldn't we wait until we see what we have before we begin manipulating the press and the public against it? Ultimately in the end these folks are obviously free to conduct their business however they want. My goal is simply to point out that the manner currently being used to promote a specific agenda is only hurting those that conspire to present it. Ultimately our direction as a city is decided by four votes.
October 12, 2007 In just four months the process will begin for candidates to begin picking up their petitions and getting their signatures. In seven or eight months the campaigns will begin and in 10 months we will have an election. Only once every four years does the Board of Education have three seats come open at the same time. Only once every three years does the Board of Mayor and Aldermen elect two aldermen and a mayor. So I guess only once every 12 years does the city elect six officials in one year. With that knowledge comes the realization that the 2008 city election is an important one and will go a long way in determining the direction of our city for the coming years. My goal here is to point out that good candidates are needed to help fill those six seats. Without knowledge of how many incumbents plan to run, it stands to reason that even if all do run we still need competition and healthy debate about the issues. So might you consider running for one of the two boards? Do you believe that one or both boards needs some new blood and a change in direction? Do you believe you would be willing to sacrifice some time and effort to help improve your city? Please consider it.
October 11, 2007 At the Monday, October 8 meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen did not cut any capital projects list and did not add two priorities to any such list. The board accepted a motion to consider a list of potential projects at a work session on October 22. The board received a recommendation from the mayor to draft a Capital Improvements Plan. That recommendation was voted down 5-2 because our city code says the City Administrator should draft the plan and present it to the Planning Commission, which will then make a recommendation to the board regarding that plan. The board also received a recommendation from the mayor to proceed with moving the Planning and Codes department into the recently-purchased old Coffee Co. Health Building. That recommendation was voted down 4-3 because the board has not decided if that is the preferred way to proceed yet regarding our municipal building and police station. In our work session following our meeting, the local firm of Oliver, Rhoads, & Associates, Inc. told the board that they couldn't recommend any scenario where the city should spend money trying to fix the current municipal/police facility. They went on to state that construction of a new facility would cost approximately $125 per square foot. A 20,000 square foot facility would cost around $2.5 million. That is a significant amount, but the cold reality is our current facility appears to be beyond repair. We certainly don't want to start moving departments around when we are in the process of deciding our direction. There were a number of policy recommendations that came out of the Grundy Street Land Sale Review Committee report, although the local media only focused on one section of those recommendations. How the multiple recommendations were spun into a story of how the mayor disagrees with a small portion of those recommendations is quite telling on the current slant of the press. The mayor, who was an alderman during the first half of the land sale and the mayor during its conclusion, made a valiant effort to warn the public that the process was not being done properly. He did all he could do in the sense he warned the board and the public, he contacted MTAS, he made motions to stop the deal, and he was advised by the city attorney. Yet the expectation was there for the Grundy Committee to make some sort of recommendation giving a board member more authority to stop the wishes of a majority of the board. Think about that. The prevailing dynamic that guides our government is that majority rules. As a board member voting in the minority sometimes that is unfortunate, but to expect a method to stop the board's direction as one member would work against that concept completely. Tennessee state law, section 8-44-102 deals with the Open Meetings issue. It states, "All meetings of any governing body are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times, except as provided by the Constitution of Tennessee.
October 9, 2007 The Grundy Street Land Sale Review Committee brought its final report before the board and the board accepted the report unanimously. There are a number of policy recommendations inside the report that the board agreed to forward to the Policy Committee. Capital projects was another major topic of discussion last night. The board agreed to ask the city administrator to gather information and present it at a study session on Oct. 22. That seemed to be an appropriate action to begin serious discussion on items we can potentially accomplish. We received information from an architectual firm that once again suggested that trying to fix up our current city hall and police department is not a viable option for us. It is our responsibility now to consider all possible methods of constructing a new facility. Maybe it can't be done, but if there is a way I hope we can find it.
October 8, 2007 The Grundy Street Land Sale Review Committee has concluded its work and will offer its report to the BMA tonight for acceptance. There are a number of suggestions for improving our policies included, but what we didn't do is point fingers at people or attempt to assign motives. The process of the review was one of the most tedious and time consuming exercises I've been involved with. I am extremely proud to have been part of group that was very dedicated and determined to take no shortcuts or make no effort to short-change the process. What we have completed is what I believe to be a fair, comprehensive examination of the entire timeline regarding the sale of that city property. Now, hopefully, as a city we can collectively put this behind us and move on to pressing issues. The first direction it appears we will point ourselves in is the matter of prioritizing capital projects and beginning to study our best options. There are a number of ways to go about this and I don't believe any are necessarily wrong or right. Just different. One of the most enjoyable parts of being on the BMA these days is the constant discovery of new information and guidelines regarding our rules of engagement and our particular form of government. I expect that issue to be of particular importance as we move towards the future, and our study session tonight should provide some guidance in our required direction.
October 3, 2007 Had I known it was that easy I would have suggested running positive information two or three years ago. Imagine all the turmoil and animosity that could have been avoided. Who knew. Since my suggestions seem to be so influential let me offer another one. How about you don't run articles about issues that only feature one board members' opinion when an issue hasn't even yet been discussed by the board. Or what about this one. Maybe you should refrain from jumping on incomplete legal opinions from the city attorney to the BMA and running them as fact until the opinion, including all relevant questions, has been determined as fact. Hey I'm just trying to help here. One issue that is certain to come up at the Monday, Oct. 8 meeting of the BMA is the issue of capital projects. The board has yet to determine a direction for the coming years, although it accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation months ago. The BMA needs to determine exactly what its priorities are for the next few years and then make every effort to stick by those priorities if at all possible. Obviously each year the BMA can adjust its priorities, but in the end the same issues seem to rise to the top. One question we have to consider is the difference between priorities that would require us to borrow money and those that can be done with cash on hand. We should never assume a particular priority requires a loan or bond issue, especially when there appears to perhaps be sufficient cash on hand. There are smaller issues that obviously are available to complete immediately if the BMA can simply get four votes in the same direction. The issue becomes if we have the money to address smaller capital issues, even though they might not be at the top of the priority list, do we address them now or hold onto the money in hopes of accomplishing a more-expensive project that is higher on the list?
September 27, 2007 Tickets for the evening are $50 per head, and that includes an excellent dinner and live music, and of course the always-entertaining Coach Pearl. I hope you will consider purchasing a ticket by contacting the Athletic Department at Motlow College. Bucks head hoops coach Bobby Steinburg has put the event together. The energetic Steinburg is in his second year as head coach at Motlow, and he has assembled a virtual team of all-stars for the 2007-2008 season, including a number of Division I prospects. Motlow athletics are sometimes overlooked in our area, but the quality of play you'll see if you attend a game at Copperweld Arena on the Moore Co. campus is outstanding. With free admission and high-quality competition, I encourage you to give the Bucks and Lady Bucks a try this season. I don't think you will be disappointed.
September 26, 2007 Did you know our city government was in complete chaos today? Me neither. It is amazing how our local drive-by media representative can't seem to get a grasp on the fact that the days of all members of all boards and commissions in this town being of the same mindset on all issues is over. Obviously the staff of that media is confused. They believe that the way things were three years ago, when all BMA votes were 6-1 and the Planning Commission followed few regulations and school board requests went unchallenged, is the way things are always supposed to be. Well guess what spin machine, the voters decided they didn't want that one-sided representation anymore. There is this yearly activity called an election, and in case it has gone unnoticed every seat on the city board has either changed places or changed people in just over two years. The BMA is now comprised of individuals who seem much less inclined to follow the same talking points and predetermined paths as their predecesors. The mistakes of the past have become exposed, and the task of fixing those mistakes and righting the ship that is our city is time consuming and sometimes painful. Perhaps the spin machine might consider altering its tired, predictable pattern of focusing the majority of its attention on whatever negatives it can find in our city government. Maybe, just maybe, it could look for the many positive developments that are proceding and cast some light on them. After all, it seems quite contradictory that the very person who represents Tullahoma on the county body charged with recruiting new business to our city, is the same person who runs the spin machine and constantly attempts to cast our city and its government in a negative light. Based on the lack of effectiveness in recruiting new business, perhaps its time to consider a change in the respresentation. After all, the spinster seems to be working against himself, and since that is seemingly unrealized it may be time for this chaotic city government to point that out and take necessary action. Enough is enough, and with the latest editorial rant that our city is out of focus and in chaos, its time for the spin machine to accept its responsibility and report the news as news, not as constantly-slanted hit pieces that attempt to instill distrust and negativity.
September 21, 2007 As an elected respresentative of the people of Tullahoma, and a current member of the Planning Commission, I have to be attentive when the level of accusations and criticism reaches its present depth. The hit piece on the Planning Commission, just another in a long series of editorial blasts directed at the group of five volunteers and two BMA members, makes pretty strong allusions to "the apparent intent to treat some developers different than others". I believe just the opposite, that in fact the current version of the Commission has spent excessively long hours attempting to correct a system that was in place to do just what it is now accused of doing. Next comes this little beauty, "Unclear 'standards' have and will continue to alienate talented investors." Up until just over a year ago there were no 'standards'. That is the whole problem with attempting to define the standards now. I don't remember reading too many attacks on the Commission when there were no standards, and I don't recall significant investment being proposed in the immediate period leading up to the current Commission's appointments. Following more implications that the Commission is responsible for limiting investment comes this particularly-brutal attack, "A sense of obstructionism teamed with the rejecting or stalling of projects that meet the currently defined city regulations has gained a toehold and appears they will continue to take the place of common sense." What? When was the last project that met currently defined city regulations rejected or stalled? A significant number of new subdivisions and commercial requests have been approved in recent months. In the most-visible case before the Commission in recent memory the ruling judge emphatically stated the Planning Commission did everything properly it was supposed to do and did nothing wrong it was accused of doing. Where has the editorial been informing the masses of that significant event? After plainly writing that the Commission, led by a "minority of political appointees who think they know more about planning than the certified experts", has hamstrung the city planning department, the piece goes on to accuse the Commission directly of "politicizing the development issue." Hold on just a moment. Isn't the Planning Commission's purpose to define the regulations and guidelines that cover development in our city? Aren't they then charged with voting on whether to approve or disapprove projects? Who are the experts, and in what particular instance has the development issue been politicized? I am betting most folks read this kind of babble and wonder why is this paper attacking these people so often and so viciously? Why has a group of people, six of the seven of which were appointed by the current mayor, become the target of so many journalistic assaults? Obviously I have no idea, although my suspicions are pretty strong. If you have been to or watched on TV any recent meetings of the Commission then you know the non-members who have been dominant in expressing opinions about issues. Especially telling was last Monday night when the mayor was present to argue his case that we can't afford to explore potential options regarding the municipal building/police department issue, but that we should just accept the fact we have no money to solve the problem and continue on as if the problem doesn't exist. Thankfully the Commission wholeheartedly disagreed and unanimously sent a recommendation to the BMA that the city begin making plans to locate and build a new facility. Our municipal government and police simply cannot continue to properly serve the public in their current environment. It is apparent that there are people in public service who do not understand that boards such as the Planning Commission and the BMA have seven members, and when a body such as that votes on an issue and a majority wins that vote then the matter is settled. It is proper to debate one's beliefs before votes and it is proper to suggest one's disappointment when votes don't go their way. What is not proper is to attack the voting body with highly-inflammatory statements and blatantly-unprovable accusations. I can stand the political hatchet jobs that have been done on me in recent months by the spin machine. It is not the most enjoyable way to start a morning, but I realize those types of things come with the office. The majority of the Planning Commission didn't run for office, but was appointed by the mayor. He has yet to defend the Commission for unknown reasons, despite this lengthening list of negative articles.
September 13, 2007 Having been included in email conversations between the mayor and the school board chairman, it appears the two can't find an agreeable date where every single member of both boards will be available to attend. If that is the criteria then I wouldn't count on this meeting ever happening. If this scenario of seemingly trying to solve our school capital issue needs, while at the same time just never seeming to quite get in position to actually solve them, is familiar to you then don't feel alone because it is certainly familiar to me. Frankly I'm becoming somewhat frustrated at the whole process, or lack of process in this case. If you have ever walked through East Lincoln on a normal school day, and then walked through Robert E. Lee or Bel-Aire, then you are familiar with the extreme contrast in the learning environment that exists. Where is the Support our City Schools crowd now? When revenues were unavailable and the only hope of building a new facility was to raise property taxes they were protesting outside city hall in favor of that. Now that the school system has had a revenue windfall from additional county property taxes and state allocations, and this project could possibly be done with a city property tax decrease, they are nowhere to be found. We can do better as a city, and I am more determined than ever to see that we correct this inequality between learning environments. It is not about power, or who controls money, or anything related to that. This is about equal opportunity and doing what is right.
September 11, 2007 The purpose for the meeting, as specified in Alderman Jonathan James' request two weeks ago, is to hopefully find a course of action that will allow the city to build a new East Lincoln Elementary School this year. There were a number of other issues the BMA discussed last night at its regular meeting, but most were not ready for a vote and were either deferred to the Policy Committee or to a future work session. The Planning Commission will also meet Monday, Sept. 17 at 4pm upstairs at city hall. One of the items to be discussed will be the future of the municipal building/police department. I have made my opinion quite clear on this space in the past regarding this issue. Please accept the invitation to come to the meeting on Monday and express your opinion, but before you do get a quick tour of the current facility. It will open your eyes.
September 5, 2007 The reason for the meeting request is to hopefully work our way towards getting a new East Lincoln built. We got a second chance to address the issue after the state re-worked our property tax number, forcing us to vote three more times on an amended budget. The budget that was passed on the third reading on June 26 appears now to have not been in the best interests of those who desire to get a new school built. However, with new money coming in from county property taxes and formerly-withheld school transportation funds, the opportunity is once again here. The key in my opinion is putting into law exactly where any additional revenue should go. It appears that some want to continue to just do things the way they have been done in the past, which in case anyone has noticed hasn't gotten us any closer to getting a new East Lincoln built. If the city could force that new money into the Sales Tax Sinking Fund, which can only be used for schools, then there is a chance a new East Lincoln could begin construction this year. But I believe that is the only chance, and considering how often that need has been vocalized I struggle to understand why anyone would oppose the idea. And perhaps oppose is not the proper term. Often times when new concepts and ideas are presented it takes some time for everyone to grasp the concepts, and maybe that is the case here. I know school board members are reaching out to city board members in hopes of understanding these new concepts. So I end with this question. Why has there not been an attempt by the heads of our two elected political bodies to organize a meeting? Although we hear about the need and desire of such a meeting often, from my alderman seat I have not seen a concerted effort to make progress on this issue.
August 30, 2007 From the first day I took office as an alderman in our fine city it was apparent that our current system of funding our schools system, and the subsequent lack of funding of school capital projects, must change if we are to fulfill our responsibility as a city board of providing our children with sufficient and equal opportunities. The problem never appeared to be a lack of resources and that certainly is not the case now. The issue has always seemed a lack of willingness to direct our resources into the area of capital improvements. The concept that personnel will always take precedence over capital needs cannot continue to the degree it has prevailed in recent years. Now despite what some media would lead you to believe, that has no relationship to teacher salaries. In fact, I don't think you'll find any instance where I've ever even mentioned teacher salaries. With a declining student population and expanded use of technology does it not make common sense that there should be decreased expense opportunities somewhere? The time is now to accept the responsibility that is placed upon us and make the tough decisions required for our children to have every opportunity to succeed. Pay close attention as to who is up to the task and who is unwilling to accept the challenge placed before them. Those who pushed hard for the bond issue last year, and were more than willing to put the expense of the projects on the back of taxpayers, don't seem near as willing to consider alternative solutions or to try new approaches. Those who fought extremely hard to insure all additional tax revenue went to the school system don't seem very willing to fight for some of that revenue to go towards building new schools. My point is this. It is time for the 14 elected officials in this city to begin an open dialogue exchange in order to move towards accomplishing the stated goal - updated facilities. We can't get schools built if we are pulling against each other, and if we don't recognize that soon and change our methods we will all be home watching someone else solve these problems in the future.
August 27, 2007 You can only be a better citizen if you know what is happening with your city government. The more you know about how each individual member is voting and conducting themselves, the better-informed you will be at election time. Tonight's meeting should be fully loaded, with budget votes and perhaps the largest agenda (some 400+ pages) that I've seen since August, 2005. Most of the pages are last year's final budget and the coming year's proposed budget. Both are due for their second readings. After much discussion and some changes during the first reading, don't be surprised if the second reading is considerably quicker. The third might be lengthy, but the second has a chance to proceed without delay. The proposal to hire a parlimentarian for the city is being brought before the board by Alderman Lindeman. I wonder if our city has ever needed someone to guide the meetings, other than the chair, in the past. We should be past the point of not knowing our basic meeting rules and I'll have to be convinced we need to pay someone to do somebody elses job. There will discussion regarding the Caboose Park and the Municipal Building/Police Department renovations and the purchase of the old county health department building. The Planning Commission approved a park site plan, but didn't address funding. It also recommended buying the old building, but didn't consider how it might be used. I think I've been pretty clear from the start on my position on each of those issues, and I laid out an alternative plan regarding the municipal/police needs last week on this site. I expect to have an opportunity to present new options to this issue.
August 23, 2007 The school system has long claimed, and I believe with ligitimacy, that we need to rebuild a portion of East Lincoln and give that quadrant of town a nice grammer school they can be proud of. Building that school has been at the forefront of discussion, including a bond referendum, for a number of years. Some members of the BMA, myself included, want to designate any additional county money that surfaces during the fiscal year directly into the sales tax sinking fund. Estimates have ranged anywhere from $400,000 to $800,000. What is the argument against that? Who doesn't seem to want to see a school get built? Why? To balance our budget, fund the schools with what they asked for, cut taxes, and designate additional money earmarked for schools into the fund to build that school would be a tremendous accomplishment for this Board. If there is a decent chance that could be accomplished shouldn't we seize the moment? This issue of school capital projects has dragged on for years. It got voted down in referendum last year because voters believed, and rightly so based on the statements by board members at that time, that it would require a significant tax increase. How would voters vote if they instead knew there would be no tax increase, but instead a cut, and budgets would be balanced? We also have an opportunity to consider the option of building a new city hall and police department. Ask for a tour of the current facility sometime, then come tell me we should just patch up the roof and continue in there for the foreseeable future. The city has $650,000 in bond money it could devote to the facility. In addition, we have almost $6,000,000 in reserves. What good is that money just sitting there? What are we waiting for, a desperate need that requires immediate attention? I submit this is it. This is what reserve money should be spent for, to a certain level. Why could we not consider taking that reserve to $4,000,000? What if we took the school administration and moved them into temporary, leased quarters, leveled their current facility, and built a beautiful new city hall/school administration/fire administration/police department on the corner of Jackson St. and Carroll St.? Talk about coming over the viaduct and getting a good first impression! We own the land. Plus, once the facility was complete we could surplus the current property and hopefully sell it for a significant amount, maybe $679,000. That would put us over the $3,000,000 mark, and I believe we could build something that would shine for 50 years. Imagine a 25,000 or so square foot facility from the corner of Jackson and Carroll and stretching down Carroll, with a nice entrance facing the corner with our flags and a modern sign with the new city logo and our seal. Conference rooms, copiers, servers, administrative support, parking, and all kinds of other things could all be shared in one facility. Wouldn't that save a considerable amount of money? There is room for plenty of parking. There are multiple entrance and exit possibilities. We could build two, or maybe even three stories, with the sharing of elevators another money saver. I don't see any reason the school building or South Jackson or the log cabin would be affected. Even the Red Cross building could stay with the right plan. I think the whole city would get a morale boost from that, especially with no tax increase to pay for it. Once FTTP is in place the opportunities to be more efficent with technology would be greatly enhanced in a new facility, saving taxpayers even more money. These things are not easy concepts, as they are different than options considered any time recently, but they are bold attempts to solve high-impact issues. Do we at least explore the possibilities, or do we sit back, spend the money buying and patching up old buildings, and be left with the same old buildings we have now. What we can't afford to do, in my opinion, is maintain status quo, because it is not working. We are building caboose parks and soccer fields, and those are good things, but we are not solving the serious, long-term needs of the whole city. I'm throwing the concepts out there, and I'm ready to participate in any activities that will help make them happen. Let's make progress towards building a new East Lincoln and new Municipal Facility! It is a real shame that the citizens of Tullahoma in 2007 do not have access to one single media source that makes any noticable effort to supply factual, non-biased news and information. Talk about wide-open markets, there is certainly one in that arena. I believe 100% in freedom of the press and freedom of speech. However, with that freedom comes a certain amount of responsibility. Journalistic integrity requires providing factual information and allowing for both sides of an issue to be presented. As citizens we get neither through our current media, and that is a real disservice to those who support that media through subscriptions and advertising.
August 20, 2007 I am wondering why the caboose project, which was originally scheduled for a public hearing, has been removed from the public hearing list. I suspect I'll ask that question pretty early in the meeting. The item is listed as a 'request for review' in the agenda package, but the Commission clearly stated at our study session on Aug. 6 that it believed it needed to vote on the issue. We'll see how that works itself out. The Planning Commission will also get an overview of the proposed remodeling of our municipal building and police department. Architects have indicated the $650,000 we have available will not approach solving the problems our outdated, cramped facility has, which means we must take a serious look at creative ways to construct a new facility. I believe there are possibilities out there. The BMA session will deal with finalizing our 2006-2007 fiscal year budget and amending our 2007-2008 budget on first reading. There are a number of issues that must be clarified on both documents, although last year's budget seems in order for completion. This year's budget is another story. There were things done on June 26, during our third reading of the budget, that either were not proper or are incomplete. I expect there will considerable discussion on those matters, and although this is only the first of three readings, it seems appropriate to go ahead and make the tough decisions required to get this process moving towards completion. One goal I have is to find a way to began making progress on our school system capital project needs, specifically East Lincoln. With considerable new revenue from multiple sources this year it appears to be an opportune time to get that project started. Some fiscal restraint will be required regarding operating budgets, but there is additional money available and it would be a shame to see this opportunity not seized upon.
August 15, 2007 Let me just run down the list real quick. The first paragraph suggests the former health department building is being considered for purchase and renovation for police department use - not true. The PD was never mentioned in relation to the building. Later the story says architects have looked at plans to renovate the 40-year old building - not true. There are no plans yet, that would be the architects job to create them should we ultimately decide to actually purchase and renovate the facility. Next it quotes Tullahoma Police Chief Paul Blackwell as saying that from his department's standpoint the needs of the current municipal building, which the majority of the conversation regarding renovation was about, would be "minor surgery" - not true. Actually what he said was that according to the architect, putting a few hundred thousand dollars into renovating the existing downtown municipal building would be like putting a bandaid on something that requires major surgery. The next inaccuracy states that the renovation was quoted at a cost of $130-150 per square foot - not true. Actually, the cost of an entirely new facility was quoted at that price for a police department. About the only truth to the article was when it pointed out that the mayor, who voted to stop action on the purchase of the old health department facility on Collins St. Monday night, now says the city is morally obligated to buy the property because the board previously voted to buy it. For the record, this is in direct contrast to the fact he argued for a year that the city shouldn't sell the Grundy St. land to Dan Marcum, although the board had voted multiple times to do just that. Can we get just the slightest hint of consistency here? And oh yes, once again just for the record, the ethics policy that each member of the city board signed clearly states that we, as individual board members, have no authority to direct city staff to do any work or to spend any money, without a majority vote of the entire board. The policy doesn't say that if the project is small then it doesn't count, or if there are donations from business and individuals that it doesn't count. In my opinion we absolutely should send the so-called caboose project to the Planning Commission, where it should have gone to start with. And in my opinion, now that we have been told by our architects that to renovate the municipal building and the health department building would be a very temporary and short-lived solution to our space problems, we should step back, stop the purchase of the health department, stop the work of the architects, and re-examine our options. Perhaps there is a better choice here. If it in fact turns out that we have gone past the point of no return on the health department building, then maybe there is a better use for that building.
August 14, 2007 I felt very comfortable nominating Janice Bowling for Mayor Pro Tem. Although I felt fully qualified to carry out the duties of mayor if called upon during the past year, I never really had that opportunity. She is certainly more than qualified and deserves the opportunity to sit in that seat. I believe her unanimous selection reflects that the entire board shares my feelings on this. I don't have the time nor the energy to go through each vote and break it down in a manner that is understandable at this point. Lets just summarize by saying much of the discussion was based around proper process, and it often seemed like one or two board members just couldn't grasp the concept of what is proper and what is not. The board did vote to temporarily stop the purchase of the old county health department building and stop the process of remodeling the municipal building. I believe the prevailing thought now is to send the matter to the Planning Commission and begin considering how we might build a new City Hall/Police Station. That is what the architects recommended and that would be my preference. I can't see spending $650,000 on two really old buildings, especially since the experts have told us that to do that would not approach solving our problem. The board voted to send the downtown caboose issue to the Planning Commission for approval. There was much debate regarding whether proper process was followed, and my opinion was quite clear. I hope in the future we have all learned that proper process must be followed. We have an ethics code for a reason, and it is specific in its language that individual members of the board can't direct city resources by themselves. We also had before us last night agenda items to close the door on the last year's budget and make some minor amendments to this year's budget. Neither of those things happened because the budgets were totally incomplete. Neither featured a budget from the school board, which is part of our city budget and required in these types of actions. It now appears special-called meetings will be required to accomplish the specified tasks. The BMA agreed to invite the school board to an Aug. 20 meeting, with the hopes of finding a way to get East Lincoln built. It became apparent last night that the entire city board, at least all I heard speak, are in favor of finding a way to get that school built. I think we can make it happen, but we need the cooperation of the school board to get it done. In summary, I see a different mindset for this edition of the BMA. I believe this board is more oriented towards doing things than just talking about them. I believe this board won't hesitate to point out errors in process and correct them when the opportunity is there. I believe this board, which is almost the total transition in personnel that the voters have demanded, had a successful start to its session.
August 13, 2007 The highlight will certainly be the swearing in of our two newest aldermen, James Eads and Mike Norris. Both bring excellent skills to the board and hopefully they can each help the board tackle some of the issues that helped their campaigns to be successful. Once the new board members are sworn in the board will elect a new Mayor Pro Tem for the session. I have enjoyed my time holding the position this past year, and although I didn't have the opportunity to fill in for the mayor during a board meeting, I certainly feel I am capable of handling that responsibility. The agenda for the meeting is pretty loaded, with budget adjustments, park projects, rule changes, and railroad agreements leading the way. Don't be surprised if there is lengthy debate about a couple of these issues. It is difficult, and often counter-productive, to discuss issues for voting purposes without adequate information provided. I see a couple of agenda items that don't feature adequate information, which makes me question whether we are ready to vote on those items. Keep in mind as we go through not only tonight's meeting, but meetings throughout this session, that as a board we need to really focus on proper process, proper procedures, and open government. Consistency is what the citizens of Tullahoma tell me they expect from their government. Do things the right way, follow the proper process, and keep the people informed. Without a non-biased, equal media source available to our residents, it is important to watch the meetings so that you might judge for yourself what is being done in our meetings. We are elected to represent the entire city, and we should be held accountable by you, the voter, when we don't follow proper process and procedure, and when we are not open and forthcoming about our actions.
August 8, 2007 What issues will dominate the 2007-2008 board? If recent history is any indication there will be things that are totally unforseen right now that will emerge to play a primary role in defining the direction this board takes. It seems to happen every year. We know we can count on some issues to remain on the forefront. Until Cedar Lane is either widened or closed we know that will be an issue. I don't see much controversy there, as all elected officials appear to be of the same mindset that it needs to be widened as quickly as possible. The issue now seems to be can we get the state to pay for it or are we going to have to pay for it. I believe we should open the Angelou Report, which cost $70,000 in taxpayer money three years ago, and remind ourselves of what this outside, independent observer defined as our strengths and weaknesses and consider how we might work towards implementing some of the suggestions made in the report. Widening Cedar Lane was certainly one of them, as it serves two of our primary assets in the hospital and the airport. It is also important to note that the report defined us as an ageing community whose future lies not in manufacturing or industry or even retail, but whose future depends on how well we develop our service industries, especially medical services. We know that school system funding is an issue we can count on to be consistent. As long as we as a city expect a high level of educational opportunities, and I hope we always do, then funding is going to be an issue. It's an issue in every city or county in the state, and so it stands to reason that a highly-educated, well-paid city like ours will always expect the very best from our school system. As the Grundy Street Land Sale Review Committee winds down its activities and brings its report to the BMA, it can't help but highlight the issue of following proper processes and procedures in board activities and individual activities. There might be a need to re-examine our ethics policy and more-clearly define the role each elected member of the BMA and each city employee plays in executing the duties of our government. Finally, at least for today, it is my hope that the issue of technology is one that comes to the forefront this year. With FTTP on the horizon, it is important for our government to take advantage of this technology by placing itself in position to utilize it. Our website needs a re-design and a re-evaluating of its purpose. Our city needs an IT specialist who can oversee the site, and oversee the installation and maintenance of our IT infrastructure.
August 6, 2007 Let me be clear on my position regarding the caboose downtown issue. I'm not at all opposed to doing whatever is within our means to make the downtown look better. However, if given the choice I would try and focus the improvements in the most visible areas of downtown. The point of the controversy, as its being framed even though I don't see a controversy, is proper process. The last two years have seen a real focus from both the city board and the Planning Commission on proper process. It has become painfully obvious that proper processes and procedures have been put aside during the past 25 years, and there has been a concious effort to correct that. With that in mind, I simply question whether this new park has been through the proper channels. I know the city board has not voted on it, other than to approve the installation of lights. I know the Planning Commission has not voted on it, although the PC will review the issue at its Monday, Aug. 6 meeting. This leads to questions. Who is doing the fundraising here? Where is the money going? Who is responsible for the money? Newspaper articles keep referencing 'the city' in its articles, but 'the city' has never seen a plan for this park, much less voted to spend any money on it or use any resources for it other than the aforementioned lights. There is a simple effort being made by responsible board members, those who believe the voters demand that proper process and procedure be followed, to insure those things are being done regarding this issue. To do anything less would be irresponsible. We endured that type of government for too long in this city, and as long as I am part of the solution I won't sit idle without questioning situations I see that are borderline. I'm not trying to create undue controversy or short-circuit a positive development. You see I think it is extremely important that we be consistent as a government in our process and procedure. Consistency eliminates the appearance of favoritism, abuse of power, and elitism. The BMA is seven members. One member cannot take action on their own without the approval of a majority of the board. One member cannot choose to remake a piece of land that the city owns, much less a piece the city doesn't own. One member cannot direct staff without the consent of the board. That is the makeup of our city government as I understand it.
August 3, 2007 Congratulations to James Eads and Mike Norris on their election. I have known both for a number of years, and although I'm sure I won't agree with either all the time, I feel confident that both will be excellent representatives. As aldermen perhaps the most important thing we can do is be consistent. We should always say what we believe and believe what we say. We should fight for those issues that are important to our city. At the same time we should each understand there are times when compromise is the best route. Another important aspect to the position in my opinion is to not take votes and debates personally. It's almost like an athletic event. When you step between the lines then battle to the best of your ability, but when the battle is over then put it aside. Don't hold grudges that carry over into other debates and votes. As voters I would hope that you will continue to hold us each accountable for our votes. I really want to hear from you if I'm taking a stance that you do or don't approve of, or if my methods are not what you expect as your representative. As for Bobby Wines, Dale Womack, and Duane Thorpe; each used different strategies in their campaigns and each finished with varying degrees of success. Mr. Wines came very close to being elected, and it would stand to reason that he will take another shot in the future. My final comment on the election is the disappointing turnout of voters. Early voting should provide every single voter the opportunity to cast a vote. Please consider the price that has been paid for your right to vote, and plan on casting a vote in next year's election.
August 2, 2007 I decided when I was first elected that I would not publicly endorse candidates, because while in office I will have to work with whoever is elected. I don't want any negative feelings from new board members towards me, so with that consideration I tend to keep my candidate opinions to myself. At least publicly. Once you get past the campaign rhetoric, the signs, the main street hand waving and the creative advertisements, we are left with five candidates, each of which has made their intentions and beliefs quite clear on at least some issues. The most obvious issue has been the school issue, which has been so clouded by false statements, slanted editorials, and advertisements that I'm not sure what the 'school issue' really even means. Does it mean the school board and its responsibilities? Does it mean school buildings? Does it mean the amount of increases in operating funds? I believe it means this - Which candidates have indicated by their campaigns that they believe we should go back to the policies of 1973-2004, where we basically funded the school system at whatever amount they requested to the detriment of the rest of our city. The opposite of that is, which candidates have indicated that the former system has resulted in what was, until this past budget cycle, huge city deficit spending. Those former policies also resulted in outdated city facilities, outdated school buildings, padlocked auditoriums, and an embarassingly-decaying football stadium? The choice seems pretty clear to me, as two candidates have chosen to campaign together almost exclusively under that banner of returning to our former funding habits. The other three candidates have been more inclined to speak about accountability, fiscal restraint, and balanced budgets. So what direction do you want Tullahoma to go in the coming years? Do you believe we should return to our former ways. Recent history suggests you want change, as evidenced by the complete turnover of six of the seven board members in the last two years. As one of those six I can tell you that to undue policies that have been in place for 30 years takes some time. I encourage you to give the current direction the city board is taking some time to reverse the mistakes made by past editions. But in the end it is your vote, and how you use it is your business. I can only respect you if you use it though. To have a vote in this election and not use it is a direct slap in the face of every person that has given their life for this country in every conflict since our nation was founded. I can't respect that.
July 27, 2007 An amazing side note is that my other grandmother, Mrs. Ara Shasteen, will be 100 years old next March. I suspect there aren't a lot of folks that have two grandparents who are 100. I feel blessed, and realize that my sisters and daughter may live to be 120! I hope so. Grace, who we all affectionately call Mema, was always the type of grandmother you see in the movies and on television. Although her and my grandfather George never lived in Tullahoma during my lifetime, they were never farther away than a couple of hours and always seemed to be a big part of my life as a child. Grace Scott may be the kindest, sweetest-spirited person I have ever known. She could be firm with us when we needed it, and me and my cousins surely needed it often as it was usually three or four boys staying with George and Grace at the same time. But her love is the kind that you never question and you never doubt. I have seldom ever seen her get frustrated or become particularly impatient. She was always working at the church or helping a friend or something. I never remember seeing her spending much time idle, although an afternoon nap was usually part of her day when possible. Some of my best childhood memories are from being at my grandparents house in Collegedale, TN. At that time they lived on a remote hill surrounded by deep woods in all directions. My cousins and I would make trails through those woods, playing war and just being boys. We even built a log cabin once, actually cutting down the small trees. I remember the sadness that came one summer when a house began being constructed down the road. The realization that the 'real world' was invading our private little hilltop was sobering, and I think was one of my first real impressions that things change and life changes and we must adapt. I could go on and on, but perhaps its best to keep most of those cherished memories for myself. I don't suspect Mema is going anywhere soon, although when the Lord does take her there is no question where she will spend eternity, and for that I am grateful. Happy Birthday Mema!
July 25, 2007 Think about it. When the BMA begins its next session on Monday, Aug. 13, their will be six new faces from what was there just TWO YEARS ago. I think that is perhaps unprecedented in our city's history. When has there ever been six new Aldermen elected in three consecutive elections, and a new mayor? To say there has been a political revolution is true up to this point. It remains to be seen if folks remain as passionate about changing the direction of our city as they have been the last two elections. There seem to be real choices in this election, as it is apparent that two candidates have combined forces under one umbrella. I make no judgement of that strategy, other than to point out that the results should give a solid barometer of where the city stands right now. One thing that was brought up at Monday's board meeting that continues to concern me is the apparent 'park' that is being constructed beside the railroad tracks on Atlantic St. I'm all for making the downtown area more attractive and I don't necessarily believe the park is a bad idea. My concern is that this transformation of a piece of property, that the city doesn't even own by the way, is being done without any authority from the BMA or the Planning Commission. My reading of state law regarding Planning Commissions is very clear and mentions parks specifically. In addition there is no permission from CSX Railroad, who owns the property, to transform it from parking to a park. Then there is the parking. For years we heard downtown merchants complain at the lack of parking. Now, with the Grundy St. properties gone and another parking lot being turned into a park, how is that helping create more parking downtown?
July 13, 2007 The difference in thinking exists in the definition of what is a 'school' capital project and what is not. There is no question that providing the students at East Lincoln Elementary with an environment that is comfortable, quiet, and conducive to learning should be the top goal of our city regarding school capital projects. My contention is that although the auditorium and the stadium are indeed located at a school, and are at times used for school functions, they are actually more community-type facilities in that each is the largest of its type in our city. For the sake of this discussion I'm going to address the stadium. The auditorium seems to be well on its way to being remodeled, although it sure seems to be taking a long time. The stadium, on the other hand, seems to have been swept aside amidst all the ranting and raving during the recent budget debates.
Tullahoma Athletic Council The TAC could then begin strategizing on fundraising methods, utilizing all available avenues. An initial goal I believe would be to establish an amount needed for a nice stadium that will serve our city for at least 30 years. I'm guessing that amount could be between four and five million dollars. I propose the TAC then begin a fundraising campaign in the corporate community. Every business in this town should have an opportunity to contribute. A concerted effort, led by those who have traditionally identified themselves with high school sports, could potentially create a snowball effect. Then there is the private citizen side of fundraising. From raffles to silent auctions to giving campaigns to roadblocks to simply donation points at the stadium; there are a number of methods that could be utilized to tap into the private citizen sector. Another area of potential involvement is the alumni of THS, specifically the athletic community. We have a large number of former athletes who are extremely successful. I suspect some might relish the opportunity to contribute to the TAC and be part of helping to build a new stadium. What about the possibility of PSL-type seating similiar to what the Titans do? What about the possibility of paid, preferred parking? What about charging one extra dollar for general admission tickets and earmarking that to the TAC fund? What about fundraising dinners featuring former THS athletes, or UT coaches, or Titans representatives? What about getting Frank Mullins league activities involved? If we as a city could unite behind this project, and bring together the city board, school board, private business, public utilities, THS alumni, and private citizens towards one common goal; then I believe we could get this done and I believe it would be a morale-boosting, unifying, positive experience. I'm willing and able to help lead this initiative, and I'm willing to put up the first $1,000 to go into the TAC account. I have some ideas on others in our city who I believe would be willing and able to participate, and I will be contacting them in the coming days. What about you? Do you think this is possible, or am I way off base? I would appreciate your input. Call me at 247-5566. Thanks.
July 11, 2007 I reference an editorial in today's paper from school board chairman Vickie Shelton. She has chosen to particpate in the continued parade of misinformation and accusations. While she wasn't willing to stand in front of the public and toss out false no-facts, she has chosen to extend the whine session past the point of decision. Why? Fact is the city board cut the city government's operational spending increase requests, while state law prohibits it from cutting the school budget. What the schools received from the city is what is known as an INCREASE. Get your facts straight. The continued implication that voters approved the sales tax increase because they believed all money was going to the school system is ridiculous. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. What the voters did last year was vote down an opportunity to have a tax increase where all the additional revenue would go to building schools. Get your facts straight. The direct appropriation from the city general fund to the school system is not required. While that amount had grown to over $5 million until this year, thankfully this city board realized we could no longer operate in that manner. We said we were going to balance the city budget. Get your facts straight. They should put their money where their mouth is. Quit whining and find a way to reduce that bloated, 30-something million dollar budget of theirs and let's get East Lincoln built. They could shut those who question their spending and administrative abilities up by reducing their expenses and getting a school built. The only parties who attempted to deceive the voters as to where the sales tax increase money would be spent were them and the spin tool they use to misrepresent the facts so consistently. It certainly would be appropriate for those voters who feel deceived to let them know they don't appreciate being fooled. They say they don't see how the city board can tell the school board where or how to spend its money. Try checking state law. It's pretty clear about who runs the city and who runs the school system, and who has the final say on where the money goes. Here's a reminder. They weren't elected to make decisions about how the city of Tullahoma is run or how the tax dollars that are not lawfully earmarked for their system is spent. They were elected to take the money that is available to them and operate the finest school system they can. That is what is expected of them. They should consider spending less time writing articles and more time focusing on their responsibilities. This relentless pattern of political grandstanding and public attacks shows questionable judgement and an inability to accept reality. Yet again, I ask that elected officials conduct themselves in a professional manner and respect the offices they hold.
July 10, 2007 The board voted to send the auditing of our city finances out for bid as opposed to simply renewing the contract with the local firm that has done the audits for many years. Although the timing might not have been perfect for that action, I feel the intent of the action was absolutely legitimate. With the consistent questioning and apparent distrust of some branches of our government regarding their finances, I find it appropriate to change course regarding our auditing and allow a fresh pair of eyes to examine our accounting practices. At the same time, if the current contract holder submits a competitive bid then they may very well continue as the city auditor. Either way I believe the taxpayer wins. I have a lot of questions regarding the mayor's handling of the city administrator's recommendation for fire chief. Since that is an ongoing issue and the new chief hasn't been sworn in yet I will reserve comment on that, although I'm sure anyone who viewed the process would expect there might be some potential fallout. During our study session new Police Chief Paul Blackwell went over his plans to re-organize the police department. I've known Paul for a number of years and I completely trust his judgement on his department, as he is a man of throroughness and not prone to quick or knee-jerk reactions. I'm confident his plan is well thought out, and I support his goal of putting more officers on the street.
July 9, 2007 The astute political observer in Tullahoma has been curious as to the dynamics that were apparent during the budget votes. Some found it questionable that the momentum that had seemed to be building for a local level of effort model for the school system funding didn't materialize. All I can say is keep in mind it takes four votes to pass legislation. Also remember that not all issues must be decided at budget time. Now our attention turns to what will be the dominant issues in the next session of city government. Without question the spotlight right now stands on the possibility of having the CBAT program located at AEDC. Should that materialize it will be a financial boom for Tullahoma and the surrounding area. I strongly encourage any and all that can make it to head to the county administrative plaza Tuesday night at 6pm. You don't have to speak or anything, just show up. The more people that are there the more the Air Force is going to know we are serious about this project. They need to know that overwhelmingly. We'll see you there.
June 29, 2007 The easiest method of finding out where a candidate stands on issues is to pick up the phone and call the candidate and ask them. Using that method you get to decide what to ask them and you not only get their answer directly, but you also get to hear their tone and whether their answer has passion and conviction or not. Another excellent method of deciding which candidate(s) to vote for is to attend the candidate forums that are planned. One is tonight at CD Stamps at 6:30pm and another is July 17 at South Jackson Civic Center, although I'm not sure of the exact time. Finally, the last thing I'll do as an elected alderman is to endorse candidates for alderman, or even mayor for that matter. Think about it. I have to work with whoever is elected, and we don't need the new board members thinking that existing board members favored other candidates. I strongly encourage all existing board members to stay out of the race, away from the fundraisers, and out of the yard sign business.
June 29, 2007 I want to express my thanks to each member of the community that was willing to participate in the budget process. Whether we agreed or disagreed on our approach or our preferred outcome is irrelevant. It is the willingness to engage in the process, to debate the issues, to fight for what we believe in, and to then accept the end result that matters most. That is democracy on the local level, and I'm very proud and honored to be involved. As citizens you still have time to register to vote, as I believe that is open until July 3. If you are not registered please take the time to get registered. Question the candidates who are running for alderman about where they stand on issues. Then, whether it is through early voting which begins July 13 at CD Stamps, or on election day Aug. 2, cast your vote and participate. It is your right and your responsibility to your city, and there are people willing to give their lives so that you may continue to enjoy that right. Honor those brave men and women so that their sacrifice might not be in vain.
June 27, 2007 I can't honestly say it is everything I hoped it would be, but in large part I feel that the newer members of the board, and I'll include myself in that group, helped engineer some fundamental changes that will serve the city well in future years. The general fund appropriation to the school system was reduced by $1.6 million, which enabled the city to pass a balanced budget and provide a tax decrease without the use of reserve funds. That was my primary goal from the beginning and I'm proud of the accomplishment. It has been a considerable number of years since that happened. The school system, which received an increase in operating funds from the sales tax, county, and state, is now charged with providing any excess funds above its operating expeneses to the Sales Tax Sinking Fund, which should help boost the opportunity for much-needed capital projects. It will now be up to them to hold down their spending and accomplish those projects. The city approved much-needed airport upgrades and the purchase of a new fire truck that has been needed for a long time. Hopefully those won't be the only major capital projects that are added this year, but it was certainly a good start. All in all as we now exit the budget cycle I feel we are on a good course as a city. There are some lingering questions that still must be addressed from things that happened leading up to the budget vote and some decisions that were made in the process, but for right now I think we could all use a good rest and a little re-charge time. I know I could Thank you again to all who voiced words of encouragement to me during the past month. I really enjoy being your alderman and I'm continually grateful for the opportunity. Although the work is tough and sometimes the press and opposition can be brutal, I'm a big boy and I can take it. As I did after the budget was passed in Tuesday's meeting, I want to emphasise that this process can be accomplished without hateful, negative personal attacks. It consistently proves non-productive when that attack road is taken, and it is my sincere hope that when this process begins next year we can all live our lessons learned. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen passed the second reading of the 2007-2008 fiscal year budget last night. The five-hour meeting featured sound debate and solid reasoning, and I commend all involved on their willingness to be involved and to work towards accomplishing their goals, whatever those goals may be. In March the Mayor released a list of objectives he hoped to achieve in this year's budget process. Much of last night's meeting was spent attempting to achieve those objectives. I believe most of them were accomplished, although the Sales Tax Sinking Fund was not dealt with. The board voted to guarantee the school system the exact amount they requested for the operating budget. The board also voted to put any additional money earmarked for schools into the sinking fund, which can only be spent on school capital projects. Now I'm obviously no genious, but I don't see how anyone could expect more if their goal truely is to get some schools built. Hopefully tonight during the third reading of the budget the votes will go along the same lines and this process can be completed. It is my belief that we will be a much stronger city in the future if we adopt this philosophy this year. With the additional sales tax revenue, the opportunity to put it to best use for the city is a one-time chance. If we don't do it this year then the chance is gone and its my opinion that we will pay as a city for years to come. I've said it before and I'll say it now, I don't believe I was elected to do the same things that have been done for 30 years. Until I hear different from those that supported me I will continue to fight for what I believe is in our city's best long-term interests.
June 21, 2007 I support the local level of effort concept, and here is why. The only method of adjusting local allocations to the school system is through the general fund allocation. When times were hard in past years for the school system, with declining sales tax numbers and reduced funding from the state, the city raised the general fund allocation by significant amounts to fill the void. In fact for a number of years the city reached into its reserve funds to fund the school system. This year, with additional sales tax money coming from the city and county, and state funds scheduled to increase significantly, it seems logical to me to adjust the general fund transfer back down. I've not heard any rationale for doing otherwise that made sense to me. That adjustment will not happen automatically. I support the concept of taking the guesswork out of school funding. History clearly shows a pattern of funding schools based on estimates and guesses. The local level of effort model eliminates all of that. It establishes a base amount for the schools and locks the city into covering that amount, regardless of sales tax collections or county allocations. If the BMA doesn't determine a specific amount to go towards school operating funds, and in addition doesn't earmark where potential extra funds from the county go, then those extra funds from the county are going into the school operating budget. Once that happens they can never be reversed. It appears that could be a nightmare scenario for the taxpayers of Tullahoma in future years because ulitmately the responsibility to cover that amount falls on the property taxpayers. Remember last September 18? A rally downtown, picket signs in front of city hall, and children singing, "We Shall Overcome" in the hallways? That was about the city "only" increasing school operating funds by $200,000. Some spoke about the program and personnel cuts that would result. Some said the band might be cancelled, or athletic teams shut down. Do you know the school system actually didn't even use its allocation last year. THEY HAD MONEY LEFT OVER! Don't get me wrong, I appreciate them using their money wisely and coming in under budget. My point is that this annual effort in spreading fear and worst-case scenarious has grown tired and seems to be without merit. The people of Tullahoma, especially the children, deserve better.
June 17, 2007 The bottom line of the current budget debate is that some how, some way, at least four members of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen must agree on a budget. No amount of weeping and gnashing of teeth changes that reality. I believe we are closer than the press reports, and I don't believe there is near as much animosity and disagreement between elected bodies as the press attempts to create. The process is not complete, and posturing and positioning is traditional and to be expected. So I offer this shoutout to the other 13 elected persons in our fair city. Please may we end the public relations assault and the name calling and the doomsday scenarious and get down to some serious negotiating and compromising. Each of us must realize that we don't get everything we want, and we were not elected to attempt to publicly embarrass each other. We will be neighbors and family and friends, hopefully, when the debates are over. Let's not ruin those future relationships now by burning bridges behind us. I am open to listening to any potential solutions to the apparent stalemate that exists. Talk to me about the issues. Show me the best way we should proceed and attempt to recruit me to your belief. I'm listening, as I always have tried to do, because I was elected to be part of a solution not part of an existing problem.
By the way for the record, this paragraph from our local newspaper is totally false and should be visibly corrected in the next edition:
June 13, 2007 There seems to be three primary budget concepts being debated and considered at this point of the budget cycle. One is the hope of the Board of Education, one is the Mayor's proposed budget, and the third is a Local Level of Effort proposal by Alderman Jonathan James. Each option ends up with about the same amount going to TCS operating funds. Compare the three here. So why such warnings of gloom and doom, secret meetings in secret rooms, and references to hard money/soft money that linger and loom? The real questions are; who is ulitimately responsible for paying all the bills and who should determine the amount that goes into the sinking fund, and finally, which concept sets our city on the best course for future growth and capital project funding? The wild card in this debate is the additional revenue that will almost certainly come from the county. They will likely begin to pay our city the school transportation funds that have been due us for a number of years, and then they will likely increase the county property tax to cover that payment. Both of those actions will result in a significant increase in school operating funds, but we won't know those numbers until possibly after our budget is decided. The BMA is charged with the responsibility of determining the amount of city general funds that it transfers to the schools. That amount was $5.4 million last year and has grown significantly in recent years. I believe that amount should be significantly reduced this year, in light of additional available sales tax money, county money, and state money; to balance the city budget and earmark additional revenue for capital projects. In addition, the final state budget will increase TCS operating funds by about $1.5 million, as well as earmark over $500,000 for school capital projects. To view the State of Tennessee 2007-2008 budget, which has just been finalized by the General Assembly. The education portion of that budget is here. A lingering question that must be answered by this year's budget is how much money goes into the Sales Tax Sinking Fund. That amount is determined by the BMA through ordinance. It is the opinion of the city finance department that the fund should be administered by the city and I agree. There has been a system in place since 1973 that worked for awhile. However, as I look at all of these options and equations and balances as of today I don't feel that system is still efficient. We need a change. It's time to end the yearly controversy by establishing a set scale for TCS operating funds and providing the city with the flexibility of meeting its needs. It's about the city as a whole.
June 8, 2007
FACT: The BMA unanimously approved a sales tax increase resolution (1331) that listed its top priority as balancing the city budget, which borrowed $1.6 million dollars from reserves last year. Those are facts. You may not like them and you may not want to accept them, but they are facts nontheless. On the flipside, there are a number of rumors, untruths, and propaganda statements floating around.
RUP: Alderman C. Scott Shasteen is part of a BMA that wants to hurt the school system by taking money away from it, forcing the children to lose high-level programs and great teachers while forcing them to attend crumbling schools each day with no hope for future improvements.
RUP: The voters of Tullahoma voted for the Sales Tax increase because they thought all the additional money would go towards school capital projects.
RUP: The school system should get all the increased sales tax revenue to build their buildings.
RUP: If the city subtracts from school allocations approximately the same amount as the increase sales tax puts in then the school basically get no increase in funding.
RUP: The schools should continue to administor the Sales Tax Sinking Fund because they build the building and know what the schools need.
RUP: The BMA was mean when it went through the city budget line by line and cut some items. RUP: The five-cent per $100 property tax reduction proposed in the BMA budget is insignificant and only presented to mask some master scheme. LOGIC: Recent studies have indicated the primary detriment to new business locating here is high property taxes. Our property tax reduction should be shouted from the rooftops. It surely would be if the taxes were going up. As a city we should promote the positive. The BMA promised property tax reduction and we will deliver on that promise.
June 6, 2007 As we are told that a $100,000 increase is in fact money being slashed, and the first property tax DECREASE in many years is insignificant 'window dressing', it is important to determine what the goal is of those offering these confusing words of wisdom. If the goal is promoting progress, with such things as CBAT coming to AEDC heading that list, then why would one attempt to spin the concept that school funds are being slashed. It would seem promoting actual reality, which is that the BMA is taking every possible step to insure that new schools can get built, would go much farther in helping secure the training facility. Is it worth potentially damaging the chances for CBAT to come here by unashamedly promoting a political agenda? Evidently it is for some. Although those that choose that path certainly have that freedom, the problem is that those very people control the only significant media source in our city. If the goal is to increase business activity in our city, and all reports and opinions from business studies recently done show the primary detriment to business growth being high property taxes, then why would our media not promote a property tax reduction as a positive step? Perhaps its because it doesn't fit a politcal agenda. If members of the BMA introduced concepts that could significantly increase our chances to actually fund school capital projects in the near future, why wouldn't those potential concepts be explored and promoted for debate and consideration? Do those who claim to be acting on behalf of school capital projects actually want those projects funded? It makes me wonder. I believe there is a better way to accomplish the primary objective of meeting the stated capital needs of the school system than the path we are presently following and the path that has been proposed for the coming fiscal year. We can balance our city budget, increase operating funds for our schools, and build new school facilities THIS YEAR.
June 5, 2007 We unanimously confirmed Paul Blackwell as Tullahoma's new Police Chief. I have known Paul for a number of years and I believe he will be excellent in his new position. He is intelligent, personable, disciplined, and fair. Those qualities, along with his love of Tullahoma, should go a long way in leading his department and securing the respect and appreciation of our citizens. We voted to buy the old Coffee County Health Department building for $165,000. I was, and still am, in complete opposition to this approach. Although I voted in the affirmative, I only did so to provide myself the option of bringing the motion back up at our next meeting. The board, despite my negative vote, then voted to spend $12,500 on architecture designs and engineering for the old building. Our city administrator confirmed that normally those services are about 10% of the cost of a project, which puts the remodeling at around $120,000. I may not be great in math, but I believe that adds up to potentially around $300,000! I submit we could have built a nice, brand-new facility for close to that.
May 29, 2007 Though some have worked extremely hard at attempting to derail and divide the move towards more responsible, accountable city government; I am proud to report that with the arrival of summer comes the assurance that, at least in my view, we continue down a solid path which will benefit our fine city for years to come. Budget time is here, well almost here, and I am excited about getting a first glimpse of the Mayor's budget proposal at the BMA meeting on June 4. The opportunity to end the use of reserve funds for operational expenses is here, and I will be surprised if this edition of the BMA doesn't take advantage of that opportunity. In addition, the Mayor has made it very clear that he feels the Sales Tax Sinking Fund would better serve our school system and our city if it was under the direction of our city finance department. I agree. Despite the tired use of scare tactics, no one has ever suggested the STSF be used for anything other than schools. We are on the verge of having a new Chief of Police, and just a few short weeks away from also adding a new Fire Chief. Each of those departments will undoubtably experience some aches and pains as people adjust to change. That is inevitable and healthy and I am confident that good hires will be made for both positions. The Turkey Creek Road widening project is nearing the construction phase, as is the renovation to Fire Hall #2. An almost complete remodeling of D.W. Wilson community center has begun, and an expansion of our police department facility may be coming soon. FTTP is coming to your home if you want it in a couple of years, the hospital is beginning a huge expansion, the state is seriously considering helping fund the widening of Cedar Lane, and hopefully the new Air Force CBAT training facility is soon heading to southern middle Tennessee. A lot has changed in Tullahoma during the past couple of years. With every seat on the BMA having changed by this August, and every seat on the Planning Commission, and every seat but one in the Office of Planning and Codes, and four department heads all having changed in that time...well you get the idea. To say that some growing pains and adjustments were not to be expected would be unfair and without logic. I couldn't be more proud to be a small part of one of the most dynamic times in our city's history. May we stay focused on what we can become, not on what we once were. May we recognize our strengths and weaknesses and evolve with a changing world, not cling to outdated and no-longer viable views of ourself as a city.
|
247-5566 |
|