| The Blog Archives
May 23, 2007 The disconnect between the Planning Commission, the Planning Director, and developers is extremely disheartening and destructive. My frustration surfaced at Monday's Planning Commission meeting and I attempted to impress upon all present that somehow we must work together and get this disconnect resolved. I'm committed to helping these three groups come to some consensus. What we have now is a Planning Commission that has been inadequately equipped to make informed, conclusive decisions on subdivision applications. We have a Planning Director that does not seem to understand, and with good reason considering he has only been in town a few months, the dynamics and history of development in Tullahoma. Finally we have a development community that is growing increasingly frustrated at the continued difficulty in building commercial and residential facilities in Tullahoma. Each of these three entities butted heads Monday night and the result was a somewhat-chaotic public display of disfunctional government. As an Alderman, a member of the Planning Commission, and a realist in the belief that we either grow or shrink as a community, it is my opinion that the stakes are high and a resolution must come soon. I propose that all three parties come together and begin working through the disconnect. We need a simple, proper method of taking an idea for construction through to a completed project. We need simple, understandable guidelines and regulations. We need a lot less ego and a lot more cooperation. And we need leadership.
May 15, 2007 Despite the apparent harmony don't get used to the concept, because I suspect that our coming budget deliberations will not always be quite so cordial. In fact, we had 20 years of BMA that too often voted unamously and that proved to not always be in the city's best interests. There is an obvious disconnect between what the law apparently allows the Planning Commission to do and what the members of the commission believe their role is in the process of approving or not approving subdivisions. I don't have the answer on the commission's alternatives, but I have requested the Mayor explore all options to find a definitive answer. If we don't have some clear direction for developers to know what they can and cannot expect, and if we don't work harder to insure the development process is smooth and streamlined, then we are going to begin to see a slowdown in development. Tullahoma can't afford that. The city had to borrow almost $1 million dollars to completely fund three projects that had already been approved. At D.W. Wilson Community Center it was discovered that basically the entire building that surrounds the indoor pool is unusable and must be replaced. At the intersection of Turkey Creek Road and West Lincoln Street the state determined we don't need a red-light, which means they won't help us fund the improvements. Finally, the cost of sidewalks down Highway 130 to West Middle School has risen because of the need for more right-of-way aquisition and improvements. Although this is not the best time to be borrowing money, the fact is that each of these projects is much-needed and has been promised to the citizens of Tullahoma for a number of years. I believe we should get them done. In my opinion we spend too much time sometimes talking about projects and voting to approve projects and then we don't see them even started until sometimes years later. Too much red tape!! The BMA also discussed buying the old county health facility on Collins Street beside Imaginiation Station. Although I don't disagree that the property probably should be owned by the city considering the neighborhood, I also don't believe that property is worth $175,000. I recommended the Mayor offer the county $150,000 and I would have a hard time voting to spend more than that on it.
May 7, 2007 The Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen has certainly changed significantly in two years. The fact that no incumbent ran for re-election last year, and neither incumbent has picked up papers to run this year is a strong indication that either they no longer have an interest in serving on the board or they don't feel their chances of being re-elected are very good. Either way I suspect one would have to go back quite a distance to find a similar occurrence in recent history in Tullahoma. What has caused this change? Is it simply a coincidence, or are there specific reasons that have led to the soon-to-be complete make over of the city board in just two years (three elections)? I suspect it is a little of both. Without question the single event that seemed to galvanize voters towards change was the Grundy Street land sale issue. The opposition to that sale was significant, and in 2005 it was the dominating issue in an election that saw an incumbent mayor get defeated and an incumbent alderman finish a distant third. Another issue that has been at the forefront of the change has been the issue of funding our school system. It doesn't seem to be a question of whether voters want our schools to remain strong and vibrant and to continue to provide an above-average eduction to our children. The focus seems to be more on the size our system has grown to, the size and benefits of the administration, and the maintenence and direction of our facilities. Finally, it appears there was a distrust of the focus and direction the board was heading up to the 2005 election. I'm not saying there should or shouldn't have been, I'm simply basing that on what consituents have said to me as I campaigned and since I was elected. Although I suspect some voters who selected me to serve have not agreed every time with how I have voted, I do hope I have shown my desire to vote on each issue with conviction and with a general belief that my vote has been in the best interest of Tullahoma as a whole, at least as I see it. So I remind each of you as we head into a time of budget creation and determining the future consolidation of our city debt that I remain independent in my thinking. I have purposely remained free of club and civic memberships, boards of directors, and any other ties to funded interests that could be conceived of as conflicts. I have always felt, and continue to feel, that in doing so it helps keeps me grounded in focusing on the interests of our city as a whole. I would suspect the supporters of those who have lost seats on the BMA would be carefully planning to find ways to regain those lost seats. As the campaign begins for this year's election, I strongly encourage voters to find out all you can about the candidates. Don't depend on newspapers or local television to provide you with facts. Call the candidates and ask them questions. That is the single best, and only reliable, method of truely knowing where they stand.
May 4, 2007 Although the so-called BEP 2.0 funding system has not been finalized, it appears that more money will be coming Tullahoma's way to help fund salaries and perhaps even capital projects. Any additional revenue would be welcome. However it still appears that rural systems, which Tullahoma is, will still be slighted somewhat in favor of urban systems. One of our issues is that our system funding on the local level has grown to a point where it may serve to reduce the amount of state funding we could be eligible for. However it works out on the state level, I believe the BMA must continue to pull back on the level of funding it allocates to the TCS. We shouldn't reduce funding, in fact we can't by law, but the days of $1 million dollar increases in single years are just no longer feasible. I also want to commend Mayor Bisby on his article in Sunday's newspaper regarding the Sales Tax Sinking Fund. He made a very clear case as to why that fund should be handled by the city. In every area of debate, at least in my opinion, it just makes sense. If we don't get a handle on total city debt soon we are going to be in real trouble 10 years down the road. It is just as real of a responsibility for the BMA to vote with an eye on the future as it is to vote with an eye on now. We must continue the path started last year in reversing the trends of the last 20 years, which have led to our current financial shortfalls.
April 28, 2007 The special committee appointed by the mayor to review the process and procedures of the Grundy Street land sale held its first meeting on Wednesday. Although the meeting was quite general in nature and no action was taken, controversy has resulted because of possible insufficient notice. The BMA counts on city staff to provide certain functions to insure that proper notice is given regarding public meetings. Considering the nature of the committee, it is unimaginable to me that proper notice may not have been given regarding our first meeting. Now comes word that the resolution regarding Fiber to the Premises, which the board spent two hours on before voting to proceed with the project, was not sufficiently worded. It now appears we will have to have a special meeting to vote again. What that does to me is cast a bit of doubt on the ability of those pushing the project to properly manage it. If the first crucial item involved, which was the resolution, was not even legitimate then why am I to believe that this huge project can be successfully implemented?
April 24, 2007 The primary issue of the night, and one that took well over two hours to decide, was the question of whether Tullahoma Utilities Board should get into the television, telephone, internet business and provide fiber optics to every home in Tullahoma. I went into the meeting with reservations about this issue. My natural instinct is that government should stay out of private business. I also felt the financial risks to the city were pretty significant, and I questioned whether taking this risk was worth the reward. TUB director Brian Skelton and his board are to be commended on their excellent presentation. They answered pretty much every question I had. The fact that no town in Tennessee that has attempted this particular type of scenario has failed was significant to me. The fact that our city's bond rating apparently won't be adversely affected was also significant. Our city leadership, including myself, has talked endlessly about the need to recruit new business and help our existing business grow. At the same time I really haven't seen much that we have done along those lines. There have been small steps, such as painting curbs and creating business committees, and those steps are positive and certainly won't hurt our efforts. But I feel we needed a big step, and fiber optic technology is a big step. Now we must come together and decide how we can best use this new venture to bring significant, high-tech, high-paying jobs to Tullahoma. The proposed resolution to force the city to fund every capital improvement the school system requests was deferred until the board has its third and final budget reading. I felt the resolution was so distorted, and suggests activities that would be contradictory to state law, that it didn't even deserve to be on our agenda. I lost that vote and I accepted that. The resolution was debated briefly and then deferred, which is acceptable to me although I still feel that it wasn't even deserving of debate.
April 21, 2007 Tullahoma Utilities Board will present their request for the city to spend $17 million on their fiber to the premises initiative. I'm still somewhat undecided on my position on this issue. Having worked in the telecommunications field for the past 11 years I know how much technology changes in a short time span. The TUB proposal seems to not show a break-even point for about 14 years. Fourteen years ago nobody had a computer, the internet, or a cell phone. It seems nearly impossible to predict technology that far in advance. At the same time I have no doubt that the proposal could be a significant asset to our city. Should all predictions and estimates come true then the city will be able to pay the cost without affecting the taxpayers. However, should the project not succeed, its important for citizens to know that we will have to pay the cost. Meanwhile, our state legislators are debating on the whole AT&T issue. I'm not sure now is the best time for our city to commit to $17 million. I guess I haven't been convinced quite yet, even though in theory I love the idea of improved television, phone, and internet service. On the other hand, I'm always uncomfortable when government enters into competition with the private sector. Yes electricity and water and sewer are basic human needs that government meets adequately. Is the internet in that same category? I don't know.
April 16, 2007 Without you volunteers our government could not operate efficiently, and we thank you for your interest and participation. Please know that your input and efforts are greatly appreciated. All budget work sessions are open to the public. Each night we accept input from city departments and systems, such as the fire department, public works, Airport Authority, and the school board. We take their input and attempt to fit it into our city budget. Our primary goal this year is to balance our city budget without using reserve funds. Last year we used $1.6 million from reserves, and to eliminate that will require a tremendous amount of effort and sacrifice. Once we get that budget balanced then we can begin the process of funding much-needed capital improvements. Personally I believe our schools need immediate attention, and I hope we are able to begin constructing a new auditorium, East Lincoln, etc. soon.
April 10, 2007 One significant item that appeared was the mayor appointed a special committee to investigate the Grundy Street property issue. Myself as chairman, along with Alderman Bowling, James, and Lindeman, are charged with examining the sale of the Grundy Street land to Dan Marcum. We will use the Attorney General's report, which pointed out several apparent law violations, to begin the process. Although I don't know where the investigation will lead, I can say that it will not be conducted in a manner that seeks to embarrass anyone or point fingers at anyone. We will stick to the facts, examine the facts, and report our findings to the city.
March 30, 2007 First on the list is the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen regarding capital projects. Priorities are not being shuffled, they are being determined. Despite the implication that Mr. Trimble couldn't support the recommendation from the PC, he in fact did support it and the issue passed by a 6-0 vote. State law says the Planning Commission was supposed to be involved in the capital project planning process from the start, which it hasn't. The law also clearly states that school buildings are to be part of the process just like city halls and playgrounds. In the past it hasn't. The current leadership at city hall is trying to get our city in line with state law, and its obvious that those who have been ignoring that law for 30 years don't much like it. Second, you should find it very telling that the story on the Mayor's budget guidelines is inside on page three and not page one. Is a Planning Commission recommendation more newsworthy than the budget direction for the next year? No, unless of course the source doesn't care for the mayor's direction. In past years the mayor's budget speech has almost always been front-page news. With the dramatic shift in direction that the city board has taken recently, and the dramatic shift in policy the mayor recommended, one would think it would be especially big news. So it gets page three with an advertising strip covering half the article. Take note! Finally, editorial content clearly points out that the source doesn't care for the mayor's budget direction. ANY implication by anyone that there was ever ANY doubt as to the BMA's intentions regarding the sales tax increase is patently false. From the introduction of the issue a year ago, the majority of the board has been very clear on its intentions, which are to balance the city budget first and then look at capital project issues, while at the same time begin reducing property taxes when possible. The only source that has and continues to frame the sales tax issue around schools was the spin machine. They believed, and obviously still do believe, that they could manipulate the board by framing the issue around schools. They couldn't last budget year, they couldn't during the bond vote, they couldn't during the last two city elections, and they can't now. Beware in the coming weeks as the spin doctors crank up their spin machine. Know in advance that its coming, and know in advance what the facts are so that you are not manipulated by the spin.
March 27, 2007 Alderman Trimble gave a rambling sidestep speech regarding the AG opinion. In the end he appeared to blame any legal missteps on former city attorney Steve Worsham. The mayor presented his priorities for the upcoming budget cycle, and I am quite pleased with the direction he is heading. He plans to put the Sales Tax Sinking Fund under city control, he plans to make the city allotment of funds to the school system a constant number instead of a variable, he wants to offset the increased amount the schools will receive from the increased sales tax with a reduction in their allocation from the general fund, and he wants to lower property taxes. I applaud each of these initiatives. I believe that if they can be accomplished that our city will have an increased ability to maximize its dollars when it comes to capital projects. What was missing from the meeting was any action regarding the Grundy Street property mess. I'm not sure how we can seemingly ignore the fact that the state's highest-ranking legal authority says our city board broke various laws. Perhaps the mayor is waiting on some additional information. He did say his goal was to get the land back into the city's hands, which was a surprise to me. Since the land has been sold already I'm not sure how that might work, but I am certainly open to the concept. I can assure you this matter won't be swept under the rug as so many things have been in the past.
March 24, 2007 There are a number of good articles being printed regarding this issue. Take a read at what the Saturday Independent had to offer. The Tennessean jumped on this pretty early, releasing this short blog on Thursday. However, since that blog was released there has been no follow-up story. The Tullahoma News pulled the story from its website after featuring it front and center Thursday evening. So what happens now? The Board of Mayor and Aldermen will meet Monday night, and although there is nothing on the agenda regarding this issue I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it comes up a time or two. Based on how citizens weighed in on this issue as it was unfolding, I can only imagine how they might speak of it now. Please keep in mind that so far all we have is an Attorney General opinion. Nobody has been charged with any crime and no judge has issued any items. It's early in this process and we don't want to make the same mistakes the folks involved in this issue apparently made, which was to act quickly and not follow all processes according to the law.
March 19, 2007 From the mid 1990s until the mid 2000s Tullahoma appeared to be losing some of its luster. The closing of Worth and Wilson took hundreds of manufacturing jobs away. The vote by Manchester residents to allow liquor by the drink drove some potential food establishments closer to the interstate. Our high property tax rate kept newcomers from moving inside the city limits and drove some natives outside the city limits. Those factors, combined with excessive spending of the proceeds from the sale of the hospital for recurring expenses, culminated in a radical change in the makeup of the city board and an entirely new direction for our city government. I'm extremely proud to be part of this new optimism and direction. The comments and quips that were so prevelant in my first year in office about our explosive meetings and constant negative banter have lately been replaced by comments about the positive accomplishments we are making and the hope for the future. Sometimes it is useful to reflect on history, and I believe that is the case now. Think about how much the city board has changed in less than two years. Although there are still a lot of difficult decisions ahead, I believe the board has regained some of the trust of the voters which was lost in recent years. Although I have considered weighing in on the recent controversy surrounding the county commission and some of its members determination to continue to harm the city financially, I have decided that to do so would only legitimize their actions. Suffice to say that I will fight for Tullahoma with my votes and words in an official capacity in public meetings. I will say though that I would like to know exactly which gentlemen from the city of Tullahoma created the verbal agreement that gives our tax dollars away to the county. Who were those people? I challenge any and all of them to stand up and let Tullahoma know who they are and why they did what they did. To use the local media for such debate is in my opinion counter-productive. I've expressed my views about the local media enough in this space and from this point on will attempt to cease that habit, although I make no promises. With an election just five months away, and my own re-election just 17 months from now, I am more determined than ever to use this space to express my views on the issues that surround our city and on my personal beliefs on ways we can grow and improve. I won't be drawn into overblown rhetoric and trivial nonsense.
March 15, 2007 I'm sometimes asked why there seems to be such a disconnect between Coffee County and Tullahoma. Examine the sales tax issues currently being discussed and you'll get a pretty clear picture. For some reason the county commissioners that supposedly represent Tullahoma on the commission seem to be intent on harming our city financially, and for the life of me I can't understand why. I do know this though, it is becoming increasingly obvious that we need new blood and new candidates for those commissioner elections. That is a sometimes-forgotten position that wields a significant amount of power. Tullahoma is not being well represented on that commission. The county owes Tullahoma in excess of $2 million in sales tax revenue that has been illegally distributed, or not distributed as the case may be. I am completely in favor of pursueing that money vigorously until we get what is owed us as a city. I commit right now, as I have consistently, to fight for the city of Tullahoma in all matters. Yes I believe its best if the city and county work hand-in-hand for the good of all. However, when one entity attempts to harm the other and continues to withhold assets that legally belong to the other then sometimes sides must be taken and lines must be drawn. I'm taking Tullahoma's side.
February 28, 2007 Thank you to every voter who went out and cast a ballot yesterday, regardless of the direction your vote took. Remind those who might complain about the decision that they had an opportunity to express their desire on this issue and they chose not to take advantage of that opportunity. Now that the sales tax resolution has passed by an overwhelming 3-1 majority, the City Board will begin considering its options as it approaches the next fiscal year budget. I'm committed to our priorities, which begin with eliminating city debt and insuring the city reserve fund is solid. We should be conservative on committing any of the expected new revenue in the short term. We need to examine our options and come to consensus on our most-effective path. Just because we have new revenue doesn't mean we are not still accountable to those that elected us. I haven't forgotten why I was elected.
February 19, 2007 Although this sounds like a broken record on this site, I feel this issue is important enough to spend extra time and space discussing. The future of our city rests on its outcome, whether it is decided on the county level or on the city level. Either way, the next few years in Tullahoma will be greatly influenced by the outcome of this vote. A new group has entered the debate, calling themselve Citizens for Better Schools. A quick internet search indicates this is a national organization. I'm yet to discover any local representation for this group. Their ad in Sunday's newspaper made reference to the passing of the sales tax increase leading to $34 million in school bonds for the city of Tullahoma. That information is absolutely false and without factual basis. Why has the resolution passed unanimously by our city board not been printed? I wish I knew the answer to that. Instead we keep getting articles about different groups putting their support behind the issue. We even had state education officials coming to town to endorse the referendum. That's good that so many folks are pulling together to get this done. What is not good is that each additional article and advertisement further misleads readers into the intent of the money that could potentially be available if this referendum passes. As I talk to people around Tullahoma they almost all believe that all the money that would be raised is going towards schools. That is not true and never has been true from this issue's inception, which began as a proposal by Tullahoma Mayor Troy Bisby as a city issue. Yes we need school repairs and maintenance, but there are numerous other issues in our city that must be addressed. The money will FIRST be used to eliminate the $1.6 million deficit our city is currently under. The current city board inherited this deficit from past boards which chose to use reserve funds to pay for recurring expenses, which is always a dangerous road to travel. Those expenses included school operating funds, which have now grown to a city/county total of over $10 million. Please take a moment to read the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Alderman's resolution. It is quite clear about how Tullahoma intends to spend its portion of the sales tax money. As you read it keep in mind that the city school system will recieve some $800,000 off the top as per state law.
Sales Tax Resolution (.pdf requires Adobe Acrobat)
February 19, 2007 Although this sounds like a broken record on this site, I feel this issue is important enough to spend extra time and space discussing. The future of our city rests on its outcome, whether it is decided on the county level or on the city level. Either way, the next few years in Tullahoma will be greatly influenced by the outcome of this vote. A new group has entered the debate, calling themselve Citizens for Better Schools. A quick internet search indicates this is a national organization. I'm yet to discover any local representation for this group. Their ad in Sunday's newspaper made reference to the passing of the sales tax increase leading to $34 million in school bonds for the city of Tullahoma. That information is absolutely false and without factual basis. Why has the resolution passed unanimously by our city board not been printed? I wish I knew the answer to that. Instead we keep getting articles about different groups putting their support behind the issue. We even had state education officials coming to town to endorse the referendum. That's good that so many folks are pulling together to get this done. What is not good is that each additional article and advertisement further misleads readers into the intent of the money that could potentially be available if this referendum passes. As I talk to people around Tullahoma they almost all believe that all the money that would be raised is going towards schools. That is not true and never has been true from this issue's inception, which began as a proposal by Tullahoma Mayor Troy Bisby as a city issue. Yes we need school repairs and maintenance, but there are numerous other issues in our city that must be addressed. The money will FIRST be used to eliminate the $1.6 million deficit our city is currently under. The current city board inherited this deficit from past boards which chose to use reserve funds to pay for recurring expenses, which is always a dangerous road to travel. Those expenses included school operating funds, which have now grown to a city/county total of over $10 million. Please take a moment to read the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Alderman's resolution. It is quite clear about how Tullahoma intends to spend its portion of the sales tax money. As you read it keep in mind that the city school system will recieve some $800,000 off the top as per state law.
February 13, 2007 The nature of how the issue came about, starting as a Tullahoma city issue and then being taken over by the county has caused some of this confusion I'm sure. The lack of decent, cohesive coverage from the local media has also accounted for the confusion that some feel about this issue. I encourage you to spread the word that everyone in the county votes on this and is affected by this vote. Use the resolution below to show people what the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Alderman has agreed upon. Mostly, make sure you vote in either early voting at C.D. Stamps or on voting day Feb. 27 at your regular voting station.
January 31, 2007 I want to address a so-called poll that appeared on the front page of the local newspaper this morning. Any poll that allows voters to vote as many times as they want is a flawed poll. For a newspaper to put a poll like that on its front page, with no disclaimer, is extremely poor journalism and very misleading. With that said, I want to encourage anyone who reads this to go to the paper's website and vote for the increase. After you see the poll results, then refresh your browser and vote again. Do it about 20 times if you have the time. Then let's watch and see if they put the results in Friday's paper, or if the poll even stays up for another day. Why does the local press continue to frame this issue around schools? Although schools are certainly part of the issue, as our city schools will receive a significant increase if this referendum passes, they are not the only issue. Does the press not want this to pass? Are they just trying to stir up controversy? As a board we have done about all we can do to promote and support the sales tax increase. I can't stress enough how important this is for our city. We are running out of options to fix our deficit and improve our infrastructure. We are losing city personnel at an alarming rate. In my opinion this is our best option for additional revenue. I urge you to vote for this sales tax referendum.
January 24, 2007 I do believe we learned some valuable items regarding how the sales tax money is split and how the county's choices can influence, and sometimes dictate, how much money our city receives. What we also learned is that the county can't tell us how to spend our money. The county met on Tuesday, Jan. 23 to decide exactly what the wording is going to be on their resolution and their referendum. What they decide will go a long way in determining how much support they get from the voters, and the board for that matter, of Tullahoma. I stress again that my job is to protect the citizens of Tullahoma and the financial interests of Tullahoma. We are all citizens of the county and will be affected by their decisions. It is our money that they are deciding how to spend. We should not only speak up and act on city issues, but on county issues as well. I support the sales tax increase as long as Tullahoma gets all the money that law allows and gets to decide how to spend the money it receives. Anything less than that is unacceptable to me.
January 20, 2007 The county originally appeared to frame the language of its resolution in a way that would restrict how the cities spent their portion of the money. Our mayor, along with Alderman James, pursuaded County Mayor Pennington to attempt to get the language changed. The County Commission will meet Thursday to discuss that change. Manchester city has approved its own resolution by 6-0 vote, specifically pinpointing its potential revenue distribution priorities. I believe we should do something similar. We don't know what the county resolution is going to say, and we obviously have no control over that. My job is to protect the City of Tullahoma, and to fight for our city to have the right to spend its money how it determines. I won't endorse any proposal that doesn't give us that right. There is nothing in our agenda Monday allowing for discussion of this or suggesting a resolution, other than during the work session. I'm not sure I understand why not. The proposed Code of Ethics guidelines for the city is on the agenda and I support that completely. I would like to have seen the Internal Affairs Committee have more of a role, but overall the state has done a good job of creating the code.
January 12, 2007 The City Board held its first meeting of the new year on Monday, Jan. 8, and I felt it was a constructive, semi-cordial meeting that was in stark contrast to last year's opening debacle. My thanks go out to my fellow board members who contributed to a better tone, a better flow, and a quicker meeting. The money to build the new East Middle School roof was approved again and is now a done deal, with work having already began on the project. I know the school needs a new roof, I'm just not convinced the city board went about it the right way. And if were are going to build a roof, don't we need to build the auditorium at the high school? And what about that ticking time bomb East Lincoln? I just don't think this issue was handled properly and that explains my vote. At the same time I'm not pouting about it and I'm glad East Middle is getting a roof and I hope we get a new auditorium real soon. The Policy Committee brought forth its suggestions for our city Ethics Code. I felt like some of the language was too strong and too restrictive, and was able to get the document sent back to the committee for further review. Hopefully that will result in a more-efficient, better understood code for the city. It appears the city will announce the hiring of a new Planning Director. It will take a strong, confident leader to keep that department heading in its current direction, which is to determine each of its specific policies and procedures and then stick to those regardless of circumstances.
December 31, 2006 Does it? If it did would we know it? Maybe time really is speeding up but since we are all speeding up with it then nobody knows its speeding up! Sounds like the premise of a science fiction novel or movie that somebody will someday make and probably already has I just haven't had time to see or read it. Happy New Year to you all! As we prepare to turn the page to 2007 I want to reflect if I may on some things that happened in 2006 and maybe begin to glance at the issues that will shape 2007 in our great city. Looking back on our first city board meeting of 2006, I recall it was probably the longest meeting we have ever had and also one of the most crowded. It was standing-room only as citizen participation and interest carried over from some of the hot 2005 issues that led to, and came as a result of, Mayor Bisby being elected along with myself and Janice Bowling in August, 2005. Around 15 people spoke at that meeting about a host of issues, including the proposed expansion of the Airport Authority from five to seven members, the school capital improvements request, the 'sunshine law' and open government, and just the general dissatisfaction about the direction the board had taken in recent months. At the same time the year started with $3.5 million of new money being earmarked for recreation facilities, road improvements, greenway improvements, and other city facility and beautification needs. The money was smartly borrowed and well spent, and fruits of that will really begin to show in 2007 as construction actually begins on many of those projects. Much of February was spent debating the school capital projects issue. Also during the month I called out the local newspaper for completely ignoring the $5 million bond issue and all the great projects that were approved. Remember they went three weeks without a word about those projects, and only reported on them after being called out at a city board meeting. I also got the special treatment from 'Crabby', actually being the target of one of his humerous articles. It remains a highlight for me! February 28, 2006 stands out as one of the most bizarre days of my short political career. During the board meeting the school funding issue was called up from the study session by the then-majority of Lane Curlee, Phil Trimble, Jim Waters, and Richard Darden. They followed that up by approving one of the finance options, which had been provided for the first time to the board and was never intended to be voted on that night. That action, which was protested by me very loud and strong, as much as anything led to the school bond issue being defeated at the polls in August. It also proved to be just another controversial issue that was hastily voted on by that board majority, which by the way went silently away in August as neither Waters nor Darden sought re-election. Through spring and summer the school bond issue dominated the political landscape. Political Action Committees were formed and a petition was started to force the school bond debate onto the August ballot box. The petition was successful, with over 15% signing, and the issue was defeated by a 56-44% margin in August. The election also propelled three newcomers into city politics. Sandy Lindeman, Jonathan James, and Linda Thoma took seats on the city, city, and school boards respectively. The City Board majority, which had ruled since the early 90s was gone, resulting in the current makeup which has yet to establish a predictable voting pattern. The budget was another intense debate as the new mayor presented a straight 4% increase across the board that lowered property taxes from 2.82 to 2.59 and proposed a sales tax increase and garbage tax increase to make up the difference. After lots of debate and a couple of special meetings the budget and tax rates were finally passed, with most of the mayor's proposal in place except for the lowering of the property tax rate from 2.59 to 2.49. This came after the board voted down motions for a .30 increase, as well as increases of .23 and .10. We've seen controversy regarding the proposed subdivisions between Ovoca Road and Riley Creek Road. That issue eventually went to court, resulting in the developer making considerable concessions to citizen concerns. As a result the Planning Commission completely changed personnel, the Planning Department lost its director, codes enforcer, and inspector; and the planning and codes process has been strengthened considerably. We also experienced growing pains and controversy as the proposed 2007 budget came to a head in October. Meetings were overcrowded and the debate often heated. Demonstrations were held outside and students sang, 'We Shall Overcome' in the hallways. Although the theatrics were outstanding and the source of the protests was obvious, the City Board maintained its balance and held spending in check. We have opened the long-overdue issue of the divide between City Board responsibilities and School Board responsibilities regarding school land, buildings, and maintenance. We have approved a sales tax increase that apparently will be county-wide and could be voted on as early as February. We are putting a roof on East Middle School! As we enter the new year, with our first meeting scheduled for January 8, I'm excited about the possibilities I see on the horizon for Tullahoma. I believe we can take steps forward in 2007 and that opportunities exist for some real, positive change.
December 12, 2006 The City Board held its regular meeting last night, and thankfully it was a short meeting that didn't include much controversy or heated debate. If you tried to watch it on TV then you know that there was no sound and often no picture. One of the issues we dealt with was the quality of the broadcasts of our meetings, and everyone agreed that those who are responsible for the broadcasts (Peahead, Charter) will take measures to improve the quality immediately. By virtue of a 6-1 vote the board chose to borrow almost $850,000 to put a new roof on East Middle School. I was the lone dissenting vote, although my vote wasn't against the roof but against the fact that I don't see how we as a city can be over $1.5 million in debt and still turn around and borrow $1 million more for a roof. The Sales Tax issue passed on its third and final reading. Now the county government has 40 days to decide if they want to have a county-wide election. All indications are that they do want it to be county-wide, which means at least temporarily this will become a county issue and not a city issues. The board unanimously approved a resolution asking the state to reconsider its proposal to widen Highway 55 between Jackson St. and Cedar Lane. There has been a lot of negative reaction to the state's proposal and I am fully behind stopping this process as it now exists. We must stand up for our local businesses and our local rights. If the state really wants to spend some money here then they should look at Cedar Lane.
November 14, 2006 The question is, what direction is Tullahoma heading? Three months ago, following the election and the defeat of the school bond issue, it appeared we had a new majority and were ready to head in a new direction. Although there is indeed a different group of folks in the majority, as of last night we haven't yet learned how to govern with that majority. I call it growing pains and a learning process, and I believe it will get better as time goes on. Although I spent most of the evening simply listening to the different aldermen and the mayor debate their issues, there were times when I weighed in my opinion. I am a firm believer that to speak less is often the best approach. Some folks seem to talk so much that everything they say gets lost in the whole of the meeting. I voted to pass the sales tax increase ordinance on first reading. There will be two more readings before the ordinance goes to the county, where they will have an opportunity to make the increase county-wide. Although I am in favor of some type of pledge, or even a charter change, committing the board to holding down property taxes; I was not in favor of simply scrapping the whole plan. Those were the two final options and I chose to continue the process and I stand behind that choice today. I voted to approve the city board fixing the roof on East Middle School after the school board gets some more cost estimates using different materials. I am still torn on this whole issue of who is responsible for what when it comes to school money and buildings. Nobody seems to have a clear grasp of the facts and laws, which is quite disappointing. What I do know is that this issue has effectively bottled up the city board every since the election, and its time to make a decision on it and move along. There are a lot of important issues that must be dealt with and the roof on a school building is but one of them. I'm not real thrilled with how that issue went last night, and I don't have a 100% comfortable feeling on my vote, but sometimes you just have to go with what feels right. That's what I did. Another issue that seems to have gotten lost in all the wrangling was the refinancing of the bond issue for the new West Middle School. That act alone will save the city almost a half million dollars. The city finance staff and the mayor should be commended for their attention to this matter. Any time we can take advantage of current financial rates to save the city money, we should do it.
November 6, 2006 Although there are still some things about the subdivision that aren't perfect, i felt like the developer has been put through the mill enough. He has agreed to almost every request from citizens, and the final product is much different than the orginal thanks to citizens willing to fight for what they think is right. The Planning Commission also did a nice job of not giving in to political pressure and forcing the developer to create a product that is much closer to what the surrounding neighbors prefer. Hopefully the City Board can come to a decision soon regarding helping the schools with their roof problems. I believe its time to focus our attention on matters concerning the entire city and to begin the process of revamping our government to be as effecient as possible in 2007. I'm convinced there are a number of actions that can be taken to not only make us more effecient but to also make us more cost-effective. The first in my sights is using electronic communications to cut down the number of copies made and miles driven by both government employees and citizens. I'm open to any ideas on that issue.
October 24, 2006 I voted to defer action on the proposed sales tax resolution because I feel we need to at least have time to consider what the document says and if there are any changes we need to make to it. I don't know that there are, but I believe its worth a couple of weeks to be sure. Unlike past boards, this board isn't inclined to make hasty decisions that turn out to be wrong. Others voted to defer for other reasons, while some insisted that taking any time to consider the wording of the document was retreating from support of the idea, which is increasing the sales tax rate with the goal of at some point lowering the property tax rate. I don't see any retreat whatsoever. I'm going to support the increase as long as I feel comfortable with what it says. I do believe we need to commit as a board to hold property taxes in check with a city charter change dictating that a board can only raise property taxes more than the rate of inflation with a 5-2 vote. I also voted to defer action on the motion to loan the schools $400,000, with $375,000 going to the East Middle School roofing project and $75,000 going to patch the auditorium. The schools have made it clear they don't want money to fix the auditorium, they only want the full $917,000 to fix the roof. Both boards are scheduled to meet soon to discuss these issues and I believe that is the proper first step. I think we should spend the minimum possible to get the auditorium open and that includes not tearing out the seats. The seats are not the problem, and if we tear them out now it almost forces a complete remodeling. The city is responsible for fixing those problems, now that the sales tax sinking fund is maxed out. We need to consider perhaps changing the allocation of additional sales tax revenue to create a new method of funding capital projects. However, that can be a future item and should not be necessarily tied to the sales tax resolution.
October 18, 2006 On one hand I understand their reasoning that the roof at East Middle is more of a safety threat, whereas the auditorium is a place that is not essential to school operation. My daughter attends East Middle and I certainly don't want the roof falling in on her. On the other hand, why would the school board not request that the $400,000 loan be allowed to go towards repairing the roof at East Middle instead of the auditorium? Why would they turn down the money completely? It' almost as if they don't want a solution, at least from the city. I am left wondering what is really going on. Why does the local newspaper continue to slant its coverage of city issues so blatantly and recklessly? Why does it so often appear that both the city board and the school board are being manipulated by some greater power? The citizens of Tullahoma should not be discouraged or disengaged by this consistent pattern of events. Remember that what has become ingrained into our city's fabric for the last 30 years cannot be undone in two months. Things take time and I believe the new majority is focused and determined to change the course. Patience.
October 11, 2006 I am generally not a person who ever favors higher taxes. I have always felt that the more money that remains in citizens' hands the more money those citizens will spend and the more that will help the economy. However I believe on a local level, especially at this time, we are in desperate need of additional revenues. We can talk about cuts and savings and such, but the reality is there is not a lot left to be cut. The city as a whole is operating, and has been for a number of years, at a fairly stagnant level with nothing more than inflation increases during the past few years. The problem with that is that our facilities are becoming severely outdated and our infrastructure is suffering while cities around us are spending money and improving themselves. We have to compete with those surrounding cities for businesses and families, and the only way we can compete is to offer better services, better schools, and a better quality of life.
September 26, 2006 Why some continue to frame the debate as those who are 'for' the schools and those who are 'against' the schools is beyond me. I believe the choices made by the board last night were much better for the schools than other proposed options. If we really want to Save Our City Schools then we will all get behind the Mayor's proposal and work to get the increase in funds that our schools, as well as our city, so desperately need. The following is the statement I read during the debate: I believe that an increase in our local option sales tax, along with a thorough examination of spending habits by each department and organization that receives funding, is the best way to approach our budget needs during the present year and the next few years. It is the only approach that addresses the three main consumers of our tax dollars; capital projects, school operations and city operations. History suggests that for too long past city boards have relied upon reserve funds and property tax increases to meet budget needs. Has this approach been successful? I submit if it had then we would not be having this debate tonight. Keep in mind that School System Capital projects have not been an issue with the sales tax sinking fund being the source of funding. That fund is now maxed out, yet the project list is longer than ever and growing everyday. This board is the first in 30 years to face enormous shortfalls in each of those three areas. I believe the voters of Tullahoma have expressed their desire for a new direction through the voice that our democracy guarantees them, the voting machine. Unlike past boards, the voters could see where we were heading and they voted to change directions. We cannot ignore recent election and referendum results. We may not like them, but we can't ignore them. Some on this board have suggested fully funding the TCS request with a property tax increase, while at the same time labeling the use of reserve funds as irresponsible. Yet those same board members have not proposed any method of addressing the use of reserves to balance the budget, nor has the issue of how to get our school capital projects completed been addressed. Remember both elected bodies, the school board and the city board, approved the school bond issue, yet the voters said no. Yes a 32 cent property tax increase would fully fund the TCS operations request for this year, but it would certainly not address the use of reserves, nor does it address capital projects. It is simply another in a long string of one-year quick fixes to one of our three primary budget shortfalls. That is not an acceptable solution in my opinion. Obviously the voters of Tullahoma will ultimately decide whether to increase the sales tax or not. You should have that choice. You changed five seats on this board in the last two years. You know better than you ever have the increasing divide between revenues and expenditures. There is no perfect solution here and there is no miracle cure for our current condition. However, there is a new opportunity to address these issues in a new manner, and I for one will submit to the wishes of voters by supporting the mayor's proposal and doing everything I can to help it be successful. I accept the possibility that a sales tax referendum might not pass, in which case we would be faced with another difficult challenge. There is certainly an unknown factor to that approach. It's my opinion that the potential risk is more desirable than the known shortfalls of other proposals.
September 25, 2006 My major concern with the proposed budget is that our reserves will fall below $5 million. When one looks back on recent city budgets, the trend to spend reserves for operating expenses has been consistent for the last few years. Why past boards didn't address this problem sooner is a legitimate questions, and one I can't answer since I wasn't there. In any case, I truely hope that we can get a budget passed and begin the process to have a special referendum to vote on a sales tax increase. The voters have already said they aren't willing to raise property taxes to pay for school capital projects. Are they willing to raise the sales tax? Time will tell, but if we don't then what other options do we have? I respectfully encourage those who do attend tonight's meeting to be courteous and civil in their comments and their actions. We are all still going to be neighbors and friends and family when this process is over. Let's not burn bridges and make enemies, but rather let's state our opinions and make our votes and then move on to the business of keeping our schools, and our city, the best that they can be.
September 19, 2006 Last night's conclusion to the earlier meeting was just that, the conclusion of a prior meeting. There was no public hearing and there was no opportunity for attendees to speak. There was never any hint or indication that the public would speak at the meeting. The public hearing was held when it was supposed to be held, at the beginning of the Sept. 11 meeting. There are not two public hearings in one meeting. The only reason anybody came to the meeting expecting to speak was because those who want a large property tax increase encouraged them to come and chose selected attendees to speak. They created the belief that it was a public hearing, not the City Board, and therefore they are responsible to explain to their crowd why nobody got to speak. Now is the time to move on to the business of passing a budget for this year. Time is running out and continued attempts to delay and disrupt the process should cease. There is an opportunity to fundamentally change the direction our city is heading. The people have elected new leadership and they expect that leadership to change what has gotten Tullahoma into the financial mess it is now in. This is not a school issue, despite the best efforts of a small group of people to make it one. The issue is the entire city and its ability to fund all of its services in a manner that maintains or improves those services. Right now we can't do that because of past decisions and policies. Give the new leadership an opportunity to right the ship. Lets examine some facts:
1. TCS asked for $960,000, it is receiving $205,000 more than it received last year. All these factors, as well as numerous others, combine to convince me that we need a new direction. The old way is not working. We can maintain the same level of education without allowing TCS to price itself right out of business. We can provide better care of our facilities without waiting until they fall apart. We can shift the load of paying to run our city from just property owners to basically everyone, which I believe is a fairer concept.
September 18, 2006
The History Look at where that model has left us now. School capital projects are woefully behind. The school operating requests continue to increase at an alarming 15% rate, and the city is $1.3 million dollars in the red. We need more revenues. Although I firmly believe there exist expenses that could be cut, I want to first take a look at the options we have for increasing revenue.
Revenue Options Option 2 is a Sales Tax increase. A sales tax increase would inject new money into all three revenue-eaters. It would increase the ability to fund capital projects, it would inject new money into the school operating budget, and it would inject much-needed money into the city operating funds. If we maxed out our sales tax it would provide over $500,000 to capital projects and over $700,000 to both school operating funds and city operating funds. Yes our sales tax would be a little higher but our property taxes wouldn't. Why do we continue to raise taxes on a limited of number of Tullahoma residents who are already taxed higher than most surrounding towns, instead of spreading the tax out more and including anybody who buys anything no matter where they are from. It seems like a no-brainer to me that the sales tax option is a much better option. I believe Tullahoma's voters are ready for a change from how things have been done the past 30 years. They see that model is struggling. That is why five of the seven seats on the Board of Mayor and Alderman have changed in two years. That is why they voted down the school bond issue. Keep in mind that the school board and city board both approved the school bond issue, but the voters voted it down. We must respect their wishes and offer them an alternative method of funding their schools and their city. The sales tax increase would go before the voters, where they could decide whether they want to fund all three money eaters, instead of us a board irresponsibly choosing to only fund one while the other two fall further behind. It is with this mindset that I enter tonight's meeting. I don't believe we should re-open the public hearing and I don't believe we should re-open the second reading of the budget. Let's try a new approach. Give it a chance and let's see if we can't get this funding problem straightened out.
September 12, 2006 The bottom line is the board passed a second reading of the budget, with two major changes from the first reading two weeks ago. The first change is the elimination of the Emergency Management Department in Tullahoma. The County has a fully-funded EMA director, and the city voted to allow him to coordinate our efforts. The second major change was the proposed tax rate. The mayor's initial budget suggested a $.10 tax increase from the new certified rate, which is $2.49. Last night's second reading was approved with no tax increase, keeping the rate at the $2.49 rate. How we got there was a long and very interesting journey. I don't have the memory or the typing skills to provide a play-by-play account. I can tell you that the debate focused on a very fundamental issue; do we fully fund the school system's request, and if so how do we pay for it. There are numerous related issues, but that question is the bottom line. Proposals to set the tax rate at $2.81, $2.74, and $2.58 were all defeated. The move was made and approved to keep the meeting open officially until next Monday, Sept. 18. The purpose of that is to allow the possibility that the tax rate might increase once again. Once we set that tax rate it cannot be raised prior to the third reading of the budget. It can be lowere but not raised. Considering we are still $1.3 million short of balancing the budget even with a $.10 tax increase, I find it difficult to imagine how we can balance without any increase. I don't see a million dollars that can be cut from the city's budget. In fact, I believe that some of our city departments have in effect been cut quite a bit in the past few years, operating with less personnel, equipment, and training than they have in the past. The proposed budget allots only $205,000 to the schools, far short of their requested $960,000. If the city board fully funds that then the deficit becomes some $2 million. Oh yes, then there are the $20 million in capital projects that the school system desperately needs. The mountain is high from down here and I'm not sure the city has the right gear to climb that steep of an incline. So what gives? How do we solve this? I'm open to your input because I want to make the best choice for our city as a whole. That choice shouldn't just serve our citizens today, but also for the future. The choices we make today will impact our city for years to come. There are considerations to changing the fundamental way we have done things for the past 30 years. It is important.
September 6, 2006 Especially alarming is the police department, which we were told is understaffed by nine officers. The fire department is understaffed by one fireman per shift. The recreation department is three people short of being staffed to handle the mowing and maintenance of our recreation facilities. In general the news was not surprising but still alarming in that our ability to continue to provide the present services at their current efficiency and level is becoming increasingly difficult. Our city departments need new equipment and facilities and staff. Where will the resources come from? The Board will meet again on Thursday, Sept. 7 with the School Board and Director. The dirt will hit the road in this one, with the schools requesting some $1 million in additional money and the mayor's proposed budget offering around $200 thousand.
September 5, 2006 On Thursday, Sept. 7 we have another work session scheduled, with the schools system budget as the primary agenda. The schools will have the opportunity to present its almost $1 million dollar request for additional funds. It is time we as a board began dealing with the ever-increasing cost of education in a way other than just throwing money at it. I don't support higher taxes in theory. However I do understand that our city budget is out of balance and that if we use our reserves to make up that entire amount this year then we are just setting ourselves up for a bigger problem next year. We should attempt to make up a portion of the shortage this year. If we need increased revenue I am in favor of increasing our sales tax. This is the one taxing method that spreads the responsibility out to the whole city to support the school systems. Why should more of that support be placed on property owners only? What about those property owners that live outside the city? Many pay tuition for their children to attend Tullahoma schools and own property in the city. The most significant factor in increasing the sales tax is that at least a portion of that will be payed by non-citizens of Tullahoma. Every time someone from out of town buys something, whether it be a car, a coat, or a Coke; they are helping us pay for our schools, fire, police, etc. I like that better than forcing property owners to finance basically the entire budget. I am also in favor of charging a small fee for garbage collection, as most cities our size alreay do. Don't charge those on a fixed income and don't charge those in subsidized housing. If 5,000 households payed $5 per month for trash collection that would result in $300,000 per year to the city. That is a significant amount and would go a long way towards helping the city balance its budget while keeping property taxes lower.
September 1, 2006 Let me take a moment to address my position on the City Board. I feel that voters elected me because they saw me as someone who would vote in a manner that reflected the desires of the majority of Tullahoma's citizens. I have attempted to do that in my first year and don't have any plans to change. With a position on the board comes the sometimes unpleasant reality that any vote on any issue is going to be unpopular with some people. I understand that and accept that. Each of us has a set of core values and philosophies that we try to live by. Thank goodness not everybody is the same or we would have one dull world. I am a conservative by nature and that will not change. The newly-elected aldermen have changed the face of the board, and it may be some time before we fully understand what that face really is. I assure you that I will not and have not changed my position on any issues. At the same time I take pride in having an open mind and accepting the fact that I don't know it all. Never have and never will. The current budget debate has just begun, yet it has already created controversy, misinformation, and rumor. This will not be a fun process for board members or the city as a whole. We have some serious financial issues that we must address and tackle. We can't continue to put off the reality that we are spending more than we are taking in. At some point that has to stop and the longer we put it off the harder it is going to be. Watch closely the current budget debate. All budget work sessions are open to the public. Let your opinions be known to myself and other board members. I for one want to know what you think and welcome your calls and emails.
August 23, 2006 I appreciate each of you that came out to last week's Planning Commission meeting. I know you were disappointed that the commission couldn't discuss the subdivision. When the courts get involved it changes things. Hopefully an agreement can be reached to avoid litigation.
August 15, 2006 I appreciate the opportunity to serve as Mayor Pro-Tem for the next year. I was somewhat surprised at the nomination, although I had been asked if I would consider the position if nominated. I never expected to get elected to the post, but I appreciate the chance to serve in any way I can. I don't believe in choosing sides. To me that creates division and conflict and doesn't serve the people of Tullahoma efficiently. I am not, and have never been, on anybody's side except Tullahoma's. Each vote I cast will continue to be in favor of what I believe is best for our city. That is the only way I know how to do it, and the only way I can effectively represent the voters. The budget cycle is beginning for us finally, now that we know our current tax rate, the results of the school bond issue.
August 8, 2006 Another major task of the Planning Commission is to help insure that existing property owners are protected from scenarios that might potentially decrease the value of their property. Although we should always encourage planned growth, we must protect existing residential and commercial properties as well. On Monday, Aug. 7 the Planning Commission was asked to approve a subdivision that will place over 180 houses on a 66 acre tract of land between Riley Creek Road and Ovoca Road. After four hours of debate the matter was deferred until the next Planning Commission meeting, which will be Aug. 21 at 4pm at City Hall. Approximately 125 citizens attended the meeting, with every single one in opposition to the proposed project. Their reasons were varied and numerous, with most of them being valid if not always entirely factual. There was no one, other than the proposed developers' attorney, who spoke in favor of the project. Where were the real estate agents, home builders, money lenders, and potential home buyers? If not one person felt compelled to speak in favor of the project, then I believe it was prudent to question whether this is the right project at the right time for Tullahoma. My opposition to the project stems from my belief that we are already overburdening our infrastructure in that particular area. With over 100 new homes already approved in various subdivisions that directly connect to those two roads, I believe the city must upgrade roads, utilities, storm drainage, and other services before adding more new construction; especially a project as large as the one that is being proposed.
August 4, 2006 Unofficially it appears that Sandy Lindeman and Jonathan James are our newest aldermen. Rosie Graham and Linda Thoma appear to have won seats on the school board, while it appears the school bond referendum failed by about 60% to 40%. Having said that I don't believe anyone is fully confident that those results are actually true. The folks at Fantasy Radio seem to have the best handle on results. Visit their web site to see their numbers. I want to congratulate the winners and assure them that I will work with them to keep Tullahoma heading in a new, improved direction. The winners will be sworn in at our Aug. 14 meeting and then go to work. Hopefully this election, and the year to come, will allow us to move past the bitter divide that has plagued us this past year. It's time to move past the politics and advance Tullahoma. I encourage you to let your feelings known about issues, speak at board meetings and write letters, make phone calls and send emails to your representatives.
August 1, 2006 There have certainly been a number of real challenges in the past year. I didn't win many votes, falling on the minority side most of the time. However, I take pride in that because I believe every vote I cast was from my heart and in the best interest of ALL of Tullahoma's citizens. I have gotten lots of positive feedback and very little negative, reinforcing the confidence I have in how I've voted. My goal is to continue on that path, regardless of who wins the election and who sits on the board during the next year. I will work with them to keep Tullahoma moving in a new direction, which I think we are beginning to see and will continue to see after the election. I believe we are on the verge of a new surge in business activity and growth. In fact we are already seeing that with two new banks going up, a new strip mall now open, and another mall proposed for the old Worth property. When all of those are completed Jackson St. will look considerably different. Hopefully the Cedar Lane proposal will work to the city's advantage and can be completed in the next couple of years. The hospital's proposed expansion alone can pay for that project just in property taxes in a few short years. Other business will locate there also, adding to our business property and sales tax collections. There are also a number of subdivisions either already under construction or proposed, which will add hundreds of new homes to our city. We must be pro-active in planning this growth and managing it, while at the same time not hampering it. I will work hard to help lead that charge. Finally, there are a couple of areas I hope to focus on in the next year. One is transforming our city operations using technology. We should offer citizens a comprehensive city website where they can conduct business, find out information, and download needed forms over the Internet. The other is general cleanliness, which I find sorely lacking in most areas of town. We need to mow and weedeat and Roundup a bunch of roads. We need to force property owners to clean up their property and demolish old, unused buildings. We need to clean up city property and cut back a lot of brush and growth on city land. We need to improve our parks and athletic facilities. Thank you all for your support and words of encouragement during this past year, and I look forward to your feedback during the next year. We need more open government, which I believe will lead you to trust your government more.
July 28, 2006 With the election now less than one week away, I am becoming more unsure of how the school bond referendum is going to come out. Initially I felt it would be defeated handily, but lately I hear more and more people talk about it in a positive tone. Very intersting indeed. The City Board unanimously recommended that the Cedar Lane project be pushed if and when state or federal money becomes available. I am attempting to help lead this charge because I believe that road is one of the keys to our economic future. At the board meeting someone suggested a name change. How about Cedar Lane Parkway? That would allow the church and the apartments to keep their name, while at the same time updated the name somewhat to reflect a commercial district. I have a couple of ideas for projects to begin pushing after the election and after our new members have been sworn in. I'll keep those mostly under my hat until then, but I am determined to try and lower the cost of doing government business. We need to overhaul our system in city government to take better advantage of digital communications and the Internet. If you didn't get an opportunity to early vote then I strongly encourage you to vote on August 3. This is a very important election for our city, and if you don't make the effort to vote then I don't think you have the right to complain. So vote, then complain!!!
July 11, 2006 The meeting was relatively short. We voted to close the book on former City Attorney Steve Worsham, reaching a settlement with him that will cost the taxpayers over $50,000. I encourage you all to remember who voted to fire him and how much it costs you. Although our current city attorney and administrator didn't want to tell you how much it cost, I pressed them until they finally did. I sponsored a bill that strengthened our noise ordinance regarding car stereos. Hopefully, the threat of additional fines will encourage folks to turn down the volume. Time will tell if this proves to be effective. I also addressed the recent controvery regarding public hearings and the proposed Ovoca Heights subdivision. I believe we need to change our process somewhat regarding public hearings and proposed subdivisions and annexations. Perhaps during this time of transition in the Planning and Codes department would be a good time to address the issue. The Beer Board voted to revoke the liscence of Darren Miller and the club known as The Playing Field. That location has been a source of trouble pretty much since it opened. We don't need that, especially right downtown. In our study session we talked extensively about the proposed improvements to the Lincoln Street, Turkey Creek Road intersection and the widening of Turkey Creek Road from the intersection to West Middle School. We also have an opportunity to widen Cedar Lane from Jackson Street to Wilson Avenue. This issue has been discussed for years and years, with the obstacle always being the money it would take to complete the project. It now appears additional financing may be available and I believe we should seize the opportunity while it exists.
June 23, 2006 Aldermen Richard Darden, Jim Waters, and Phil Trimble did not attend the meeting. All School Board members were there, as were numerous concerned citizens and candidates. Following that meeting I went to the School Board's special called meeting, where they voted to fund the installation of new lights at the football stadium from their reserve funds. New lights are crucial to the entire school athletic budget, since football revenues fund most all school sports. Hopefully the work can be completed in time for the season opener, which is August 25 when Franklin Co. comes to THS. Now the City Board must determine how much of the $1.3 million to fund. A lot of that will be determined by the upcoming bond issue vote, as well as the amount the state gives both the city and the schools. I am very interested in your thoughts and opinions on this issue. Please call me or email me with your input. We must decide as a city if we are willing to continue to fund our school system in the current manner, or whether changes need to be made.
June 20, 2006 In addition, obviously no night activity can take place until new lights are installed. Considering the estimated cost of new lights is over $500,000, the possibility exists that the scheduled five home football games by the THS varsity, in addition to home games for the freshman team and the middle school team, cannot be played at Wilkins Stadium this season. As of this morning it appears the only way out of this situation, at least in time for football season, is for private citizens to step up and finance the installation of new lights.
June 13, 2006 I fully support Mayor Bisby's belief that we should wait to begin budget debates until we at least know what sort of numbers we are dealing with. If we don't know the tax rate, or whether we will be paying on a school bond issue, or how much money the state will be sending both the city and the school system, then how can we accurately create a budget? I also thought he did an excellent job of putting past events and situations behind us and steering the collective minds of the city towards the future. Yes the past year has been rough, and some decisions have been made by the board that I strongly disagreed with. We've seen calls for resignation and citizen action groups formed. However, with the coming election and the school bond issue being forced to the ballot, it is obvious that the citizens now have more say than ever in their government. It is also obvious, at least to me, that the change that was begun last year is not going to end this year.
May 25, 2006 Can we maintain a high-quality city school district AND grow a competitive, vibrant city with a high quality of life? To me that is the biggest challenge we face. Like last year, it appears that the majority of our city departments will recieve little or no increase in dollars for 2006-2007. That's Recreation, Fire, Police, etc. Factor in the minimum 3% for inflation in costs, and it is obvious that no increase is in reality a cut, because everything has gone up in price. However, the school system continues to recieve significant increases every year. I'm not saying that is good or bad, I'm simply stating fact. They have requested $1.3 million additional this year, a 25% increase over what they received last year. As one considers that request, in addition to the bond issue that will be decided at election time, then it becomes clear that our school system dwarfs everything else in this city when it comes to money spent. Again that's not an opinion, but it is a fact. How we got here is not relevant, other than to use as a guide to not get to this point again. The truth is that we are here at a crucial crossroads in our city's history, and we must begin to face some harsh realities as to our future if we continue down the narrow path we are on. That is not alarmist talk, it is the recognition that methods and organization and priorities must evolve in government as it does in business. Progress cannot take place without change, and progress is the only option for Tullahoma. We can no longer maintain status quo, because status quo is no longer working. With all of that said, I believe it is time to fully examine our city structure. Each department, each employee position, each method, each tradition, and yes even each individual should be completely examined to determine if we are using every penny of tax money as efficiently as possible. I'm calling it the Transform Tullahoma inituitive, and I believe it is imperative to our survival as a city through the 21st century. Our goal should be to become a lean, mean efficient machine. I believe the time is right, and the citizens are motivated, to evolve Tullahoma into a more efficient, effective government.
May 11, 2006 On Wednesday, May 10 the Tullahoma News lead article regarding the Short Springs property vote featured the following statement: "Voting not to surplus the property were Mayor Troy Bisby and Aldermen Jim Waters and Janice Bowling. Aldermen Richard Darden and Scott Shasteen voted to surplus the land." That statement is a misrepresentation of the actual options presented on the issue and the motion that was made. There was no option to surplus the land. The article later lists the three options given to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen regarding this issue. A motion was made and seconded to vote on option two, which was to "Reconfirm the 2002 decision by the city board to not surplus the property". My vote against that option was in no way a vote to surplus the property. Had the motion been worded as a surplus/not surplus option, then I would have voted NOT to surplus the property. Instead, my vote against the previously mentioned option was a result of my opinion that option three was in the best interest of the city as a whole; that being to ask TUB to furnish the City Board with more information. I believe we need to make a more-permanent decision on this issue than has been previously made. Simply renewing what a previous board decided doesn't provide that in my opinion. We need hard numbers on what the land is worth, how much is potentially developable, what would the advantages and disadvantages to selling be, is there a more-conducive compromise option that hasn't yet been explored. What would the monetary effect of selling all or a portion of this land be on the future of Tullahoma long term? What effect on erosion would development have, and would it really affect our water supply? I would have liked to see the City Board send the issue back to TUB to address those questions. There is new leadership at TUB, which in itself warrants sending the issue back to them. However, that in no way means that I am currently in favor of, or would straight-out vote to, surplus the entire property.
May 9, 2006 I want to repeat a few observations I made regarding the school bond issue, which by the way the board approved to send that issue to the ballot box in August. I strongly encourage every single voter in Tullahoma to find out the facts about this issue and then vote your heart. It will be a big disappointment if less than 50% of the voters decide this issue. I encouraged the board from the very beginning of discussion about this issue to take more time exploring potential options other than a straight property tax increase to pay for it. The majority refused to take that approach, instead opting to push the matter through on short notice. I pointed out last night that the majority has done this on numerous issues, each of which has been controversial. The difference between this issue and the others is that the voters didn't have any options on those other issues. They didn't have any recourse. As we have found out, the voters do have a say on this issue and they have overwhelmingly decided they trust their own vote more than they do the majorties. That says a whole lot about the majority of the board and why two of the members of that majority have decided not to run for re-election. I encouraged every voter to get the facts about the schools, the school system, the school board, the school budget, and the history of schools and money in Tullahoma. There will be a lot of misinformation during the campaign and its important to see through what is false and what is truth. Another hot topic was the Short Springs property debate. I don't have especially strong feelings on this either way. I don't know if that land is developable or not. I do know that there are currently hundreds of acres that are off limits to deveopment, and I'm not sure we really need any more land that is untouchable. The city needs money, and while we talk about not having enough to fund schools we sit on a two hundred acre piece of land that is not doing anything for anybody right now. It is a dead asset. I would like to see a final determination of whether there is development possibilities there. If there isn't then by all means lets turn that over to the Wildlife refuge and be done with it. If there is, then let's explore those possibilities. Instead we just put the issue off for another year or two.
April 27, 2006 It seems there was controversy involving a non-citizen of Tullahoma who regularly speaks his mind at our meetings. Some members of the board seem to feel threatened by this man, although I have never felt he has presented a physical threat to anyone. I believe he has a right to speak in that others who live outside the city limits have spoken before. For some members of the board to imply that they feel threatened enough to bring a gun to a board meeting is bizarre. I believe it is an attempt to divert attention from the poor judgement and hasty, ill-advised decisions that certain members of the board have displayed. I don't believe the voters are distracted by these tactics. It is time to get away from this type of theatrics and return the city board to its mission, which is governing the city and trying to make life as good as it can be for all of Tullahoma. As we enter this election season, I call on those board members who have decided not to run for re-election to not attempt to make themselves the center of news.
April 12, 2006 To me the most interesting, and long-term the most relevant, events are happening on the fringes of city politics as three out of four incumbents running for city office have decided to not put their hats in the ring for the August election. I think this lack of willingness to run is a direct result of the fact that Tullahoma's citizens have proven they are no longer apathetic to decisions that are made at city hall and the school administration building. The school bond issue is a primary example of how the old guard has not yet come to the realization that their methods, which have dominated city politics for the past 25 years, are no longer acceptable to the voters. You can no longer ram issues down the voters' throats. The school bond issue provided citizens a voice, and they raised that voice to a level that can not be ignored. This is a time to be proud of yourselves Tullahoma citizens, as you have used the available mechanism in place to affect public policy. Now I encourage you to take that same zeal and involvedness and apply it to the upcoming election. Question the candidates and listen closely to their answers. Encourage every registered voter you know to vote in August, and then hold those who are elected to stick with their campaign rhetoric. The 194 acres of land next to the Short Springs Wildlife Area is the next major issue the City Board must deal with. We heard members of TUB explain their position, as well as members of the Friends of Short Springs group. Both sides make good arguments and have valid information and reasoning. My instinct is that we don't need to sell this land, although I'm willing to listen to potential compromise proposals.
April 4, 2006 I think it is a very positive development, despite the fact that I voted in favor of the bond. My stance has always been that the City Board should have taken more time to debate this issue, more time to allow for further citizen input, and more time to try and determine creative methods to pay for it. The majority of the board chose to do none of those things. At that point I determined that I needed to support the new schools, although my stance on how we got there never changed. Now that it appears the petition will be successful, the question becomes where does the issue go from here. It is my understanding that the City Board will have to deal with whether to place the issue on the upcoming ballot or to just let it die for now. I suspect they will vote to let it die for now as I don't see the majority wanting to risk the bond being voted down by the citizens. That will put the ball in the next session's hands, which will begin following the August election. Now all of this assumes that the petition is successful, which at this time I have no idea if that will be the case or not. But if the rumors or true and the petition successfully slows the process, then I don't have any problem with that. It should have been slowed to start with. Budget time is quickly approaching, and the City Board is going to have its hands full this year trying to get the budget back into balance and dealing with increased requests across the board. Many of our city departments have been allowed to fall behind in funding in recent years, and there doesn't appear to be money available to get them caught up.
March 15, 2006 It seems the local press had decided to print various emails concerning the city board and state representative Judd Matheny. These emails have taken a nasty tone concerning Matheny, as well as Mayor Troy Bisby. Citizens can make their own judgements regarding these communications. I'm glad I stayed out of this one, as I see nothing to gain from this type of correspondence.
March 10, 2006 One issue sure to be discussed is the $18 million bond issue that is being sought by the school system for capital funding projects. The spending has been approved, although the method of borrowing the money is still undecided, as is the method of paying back the funds. Another issue creeping into the limelight once again is the proposed sale of 185 acres of land in northeast Tullahoma that borders the state natural wildlife area of Short Springs. Tullahoma Utilities Board has voted to sell the land. There is strong opposition from citizens against this sale, and they will have chance to speak Monday night.
March 7, 2006 In the coming weeks facts will begin to emerge regarding secret meetings between a member/members of the City Board and other city officials regarding, among other things, the bond issue to fund four school projects. Although the projects have already been approved, questions remain regarding the method of funding that the source of payment. It appears that while these items have been discussed and voted on at board meetings, there have also been discussions and negotiations going on with select parties, not including the mayor and the school board liaison. This situation has yet to unfold and therefore I hesitate to say too much. I encourage all citizens to carefully scrutinize the issue as it plays out and decide if this is the way you want your government to continue to operate. It stands to reason that this is not the first secret meeting where policy has been decided.
February 28, 2006 We were scheduled to receive potential financing options from Stephens, Inc. regarding the school bond issue that has been approved. The item was not on the regular board agenda but was scheduled for the work session that follows the regular meeting. This was NOT an item that was supposed to be acted on last night. Information was being provided, to be studied and discussed, with a potential decision coming at our first meeting in March. Instead the majority made the motion to move the item up to our regular meeting. The reason was given that, "Just in case we need to make a motion or take some action, we'll be able to do so." When I inquired as to what sort of action we might take on this 'information' item, I was told that the majority didn't know. They just wanted that option. It didn't make sense until after the presentation. After the presentation the majority made a motion to accept one of the financing options. I protested that the action was not appropriate, and that it had obviously been decided beforehand that a vote would be forced on this. I stand behind that statement, and I believe a review of the tape confirms that there was every intention to take action. There have been multiple issues since the previous election where the majority has done this same type of thing. Each time those votes have been highly controversial, with some resulting in, or will result in, legal action. Although I don't see this one leading to any legal action, it was still wrong the way it was done.
February 22, 2006 I am a little puzzled by the focus of the piece being on my ability, or lack of therein, to read very well. You would think he would at least have addressed the issue that led to the piece to start with, which was the fact the paper went three weeks without printing one word on a $3.5 million spending approval by the City Board. Obviously he had no answer to that, other than to actually print an article telling about the votes in the edition immediately following our latest board meeting, which is where I mentioned the lack of coverage of 'good' news that results from our meetings. So having accomplished my mission, at least temporarily, I am satisfied with the outcome. I do believe the city could put a summary of board meeting actions on the city website a day or two after the meetings and it would be a good service to our citizens. Also regular press releases from the city about board actions would be helpful. I plan to aggressively pursue both of those issues.
February 13, 2006 I am not in favor of having these work sessions following our regular meetings, which at times have run three and four hours. I believe we would be better served having our work sessions at another time when our minds, and bodies, were a little fresher. Just my opinion. I feel compelled to point out the massive shortcomings of our local newpaper in regards to the $3.5 million dollars approved for spending at our last meeting. There has still not been one word about those projects in the three weeks between meetings. I'm going to have to call them on that and I'm sure they are not going to like it. Oh well, the truth hurts sometimes.
February 6, 2006 I find it interesting that the local newspaper, which never hesitates to pick apart verbal sparing between board members and print the most inflammatory statements, has not mentioned one word about the projects. Not one! To me that is simply irrisponsible journalism, and a complete disservice to its readers and our city. I seems a couple of our board members are now fearing for their personal safety in the wake of what they term 'threats' made against them at board meetings. One claims he has been threatened by telephone to be shot unless he changes the way he votes. Shouldn't that warrant a police investigation? Our next meeting is Feb. 13, which is the flaming redheads' 13th birthday. Wow that is too many 13s coming together at once. Maybe I'll just skip the meeting and watch on TV with the rest of Tullahoma.
January 30, 2006 I am baffled by the lack of news coverage of the many good things that were accomplished at our recent meeting. We voted to spend $3.5 million dollars on various projects that will greatly improve the quality of life in Tullahoma. Where is the coverage of those votes? We have had three editions of the local newspaper since that meeting and there has not been one single word about any of those projects. I believe the time for sensationalism in our local press should be over. We are moving ahead and attempting to govern in a responsible manner. I hope the local press can do the same. Elections are coming in August and two seats on the City Board will be decided. The list of candidates is growing. My hope is that there will be lots of candidates to choose from. Whoever wins the two seats will go a long way in deciding policy for the next year. This is a very important election and I encourage every citizen of Tullahoma to vote if you are registered and to get registered if you are not.
January 23, 2006
January 10, 2006 The City Board met on Monday, Jan. 9 in front of a standing room-only crowd at city hall. This meeting was the longest meeting we have had since I was elected last August, lasting over four hours. At least 25% of that time was consumed by citizens speaking their minds about issues, which I strongly encourage. At least 15 citizens spoke prior to the board's agenda. The dominating issues appeared to be the attempt to increase the Airport Authority membership from 5 to 7 members, the potential funding of $18 million in school improvements, and more open government. We are finally underway with the process of funding much-needed improvements to our schools. As liaison between the City Board and the School Board, I was glad to take a leadership role in seeing that these requests get passed. Now that they have been passed comes the hard part; figuring out the best way to pay for them. As various citizens spoke about the poor condition of some of our schools, and the potential safety and fire hazards at those schools, it occurred to me that the implication is that we are sending children into unsafe and hazardous schools. I plan to follow up on this issue as we must be sure that the current facilities are safe. The nature of communication between City Board members during our meetings continues to be antagonistic and conflicting. I regret this, especially any part that I have played in formulating or encouraging it. I fully believe that as a board we need to step back and commit ourselves to intelligent, civil debate.
December 6, 2005 The workshop was also attended by the entire planning commission, as well as engineer Scot St. John, Public Works Director Wayne Limbaugh, Aldermen Phil Trimble and Janice Bowling, and Tullahoma News reporter Brian Justice. The workshop was extremely informative and a somewhat overdue for someone such as myself who is taking their first shot at city government. It presented the big picture on some major issues, such as transportation, schools, utilities, the airport, and plans for the future in all of those areas.
Here are the highlights of what I believe came from the workshop: Schools - We already know the present condition of each separate school, and requests the schools have made for improvements. This session focused more on numbers of students per school, and how Dr. Lawson expected those numbers to be impacted in the future. Both elementary schools on the East side of town, East Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, are at capacity. With multiple subdivisions being either built now or on the drawing board, space will soon become a concern at both schools. A potential new East Lincoln would hold 500 students, as apposed to the current facility which is at capacity with 400. Lee currently is at full 500 capacity. Both Jack T. Farrar and Belaire, the two elementary schools on the West side, are under capacity and have available room. The same is true of both middle schools, where East currently has 415 students and West 430. Tullahoma High School is steady at around 1200 students. There are 400 students in the system who pay tuition and do not live inside the city limits. The majority of those, some 275, come from Franklin County.
November 29, 2005 There were some positive developments that included almost a dozen citizens speaking and a 'town hall' type meeting set for Dec. 8 at 5:30pm. I encourage every person who cares about the future of Tullahoma to be there as everyone will have an opportunity to have input into decisions that are facing our city. Citizens spoke about two primary issues - the firing of city attorney Steve Worhsam by a majority of the board at the last meeting, and the request by the Tullahoma City Schools for an $18 million bond issue for capital building projects. The opinions leaned completely towards one side on both issues. It was a consensus that the board acted improperly and mean-spirited in firing Mr. Worsham on live television after 38 years on the job. Former mayor George Orr was the first to speak, and those that followed basically echoed his sentiments that the act was disappointing and embarrassing for the city. Lane Curlee made the motion to fire Worsham, with Phil Trimble, Richard Darden, and Jim Waters joining in the majority vote. It was also a 100% majority that spoke of their desire to see the city aquire the bond money and allow the schools to fund four major projects; a new East Lincoln, major overhauls of East Middle and Farrar, a refurbishing of the high school auditorium, and a new football stadium. The 'town hall' meeting was the result of a motion by Mr. Curlee to hold a meeting to debate the school bond issue and to then place the bond issue on the agenda for the next city board meeting, scheduled for Dec. 12. The motion passed, and it was later decided to include a debate about other major capital projects facing the city, such as the Cedar Lane project, Parks & Recreation facilities, and other projects that have been discussed in the past.
Nov. 16, 2005 I can't help but express my outrage and disappointment when, during the meeting of Monday, Nov. 14, the majority voted to relieve Mr. Steve Worsham, who had been City Attorney for the previous 38 years, of his position. Mr. Worsham deserved considerably more respect than he was shown, and I'm embarrassed for the city board as an entity, although I certainly did not agree with the actions and did not vote in favor of the motion. I don't necessarily question the majority having the right to do what they did, I simply deplore the method that they went about doing it. Had they handled the issue privately and allowed Mr. Worsham the opportunity to resign, and he had chosen to do so, he would have been allowed to leave the position with the proper send-off warranted by 38 years on the job. Instead he is left embarrassed and confused by the decision. Who wouldn't be? After 38 years you go from doing your job to being fired, all on live television and all for no better reason than the majority just not liking how he ruled on one issue. I apologize to Mr. Worsham as a board member for the board's actions.
August 25, 2005: After being sworn in on Aug. 15th, I participated in my first board meeting. The next one came right back on Aug. 22nd, so I'm still working hard to get up to speed on various issues. There is a lot of paperwork involved, with many issues having a long history, so it is going to take awhile to become fully involved. Mayor Bisby has appointed me to represent him on the Planning Commission and also to serve as the board representative on the School Board. Both are important areas, and I'm looking forward to learning how each works and becoming involved in the process that each goes through. The one issue that has dominated our meetings so far has been the Grundy St. property development. This issue seems to have caused a polarization of sorts, with people either strongly against it or heavily in favor of it. The issue has proven to be a difficult one to step into as it heads towards a conclusion. I've always said that on a basic level I am in favor of the development. The city needs something positive, and I have no doubts that the developers will build a quality project. Although there seems to be a lack-of-trust issue involved between the developer and select members of the board, I don't share that issue. On the other side I have watched the process unfold surrounding this issue and it has been sloppy and somewhat cloudy. The issue seems to change every week, with new proposals and agreements. As Monday's meeting showed it is sometimes difficult to even determine what motion is on the table. I first voted against surplusing the property, because I felt the city needed to hang onto a portion of it. However, during the next meeting it became clear that the majority of the board was not going to change its course. I voted with the majority because the minority views didn't seem to be holding up. I'm trying to separate the history of this issue with the reality of where we are now on it. That is proving difficult at best. Before closing today I want to plead with the other members of the city board to maintain a more civil and courteous dialogue during future board meetings. I believe that the conduct of recent meetings has somewhat overshadowed the content of those meetings. That is not healthy for the city. |
247-5566! |
|