 |
Tennessee Center for Policy Research Heritage Foundation The 9.12 Project Coffee County GOP Tennessee GOP Sarah Palin Facebook Newt Gingrich Lamar Alexander Bob Corker Judd Matheny Lynn Sebourn Twitter Rush Limbaugh Glenn Beck Michelle Malkin |
The Final Push August 3, 2011
In less than 48 hours we will know who our mayor and two of our aldermen will be for the next three years. Regardless of how the election goes, I want each of you to know that running for office has been extremely satisfying for me. You have been more than kind with your words and encouragement, and I really appreciate it.
If you have already cast your vote then thank you for participating in the election process. So many folks take that for granted and never even think about voting. I respect you for being engaged.
Recent history says at least half of the votes cast during this city election will be cast during early voting, which runs from now until July 30 at C.D. Stamps, from 9am-4:30pm Monday thru Friday and 9am-12pm on Saturday.
As the 2011 campaign heads into the home stretch let me take an opportunity to thank all of you who have helped me to this point. Without your help we wouldn't be in the race. Not only are we in it, but you are telling me we have chance to win it.
With two candidate forums on the dockett during the next two weeks I think I'm beginning to see a trend in the questions. Since most of you won't see those forums, here are some thoughts.
The mindset that the city of Tullahoma has lost its way and has been overrun by surrounding cities in terms of quality of life is a mindset that I simply can't get my head around. I keep hearing it from a couple of folks but I'm not sure I buy it.
I am asking for your support and your vote in the upcoming 2011 election, as I once again seek to serve the city of Tullahoma as an alderman. Please make plans to vote either through early voting at C.D. Stamps Community Center from July 15-30, or on Election Day August 4.
Closing in on a Campaign
Early voting will begin in mid-July, which means for the most part campaigning for local office will begin in mid-May. I am very excited about the opportunity to once again participate.
My first day back from the National Council on Marketing and Public Relations conference in Philadelphia is absolutely spotless in Tullahoma, Tennessee. Sunny skies and 70+ degrees...I am so blessed to live here.
It seems no matter what political issues come and go in Tullahoma there is one that remains a constant - paving.
In December I had an opportunity to broadcast three of the eight TSSAA BlueCross Bowl Championship football games on the TSSAA radio network. It was my first time to broadcast a state championship event and needless to say the experience was fantastic.
Phase One is Complete
No campaign can begin until the qualifying petition is complete. Thanks to many of you, my petition is full and I will turn it in one day this week.
After three years of observing from afar, I have decided to once again seek the office of Alderman in the city of Tullahoma. I served a three year term from 2005-2008, then decided to not seek re-election.
To Everything There is a Season
After watching the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen meet on April 11 there are a few things that I am unclear about. Maybe unclear is not the right word. I'm pretty clear that I don't agree with a couple of decisions that seem to have been made.
On the sports front it seems the Wildcat football team still only has nine games scheduled for the 2011 season. It is getting late. Considering only three of those nine games are at home makes the potential for grumbling by supporters likely unless a tenth game at home can be booked.
Is it just me or does this week-long snow break make it seem like its still new years? The first half of the first month has come and gone and it seems like the days just go by faster and faster.
Instant reaction. It is one of the primary things I love about the internet. It's like talk radio. You don't have time to have your views clouded by conversation with others about an event. You see it and you respond to it. What did they call it in the early days? The information superhighway!
The Time it Does Fly Past
Winter seems to have hit especially hard and fast this year. Usually I'm not really ready for some sun and 70 until about February or so, but right now that sounds sweet.
You should take advantage of the free admission sometime and come out to Copperweld Arena and watch the Motlow Bucks play basketball. The junior college game is very fast and features some outstanding athletes, including returning All-American Freddie Goldstein who is one of the best I've seen in 15 years of announcing the games.
Tullahoma will host Coffee County on Tuesday, Dec. 21, in a game that was postponed this past Tuesday because of icy roads. The Wildcats are playing very well and this is the first time this season fans get to see them in a regular season game, one of the latest home openers I can remember.
Funny the Way It Is
By now you have probably heard that the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen completed the third and final reading of the city 2010-2011 fiscal year budget last night.
After months of haggling, debating, and for the most part not understanding a $168.00 per year garbage tax proposed by Mayor Troy Bisby, the BMA ultimately decided to shelve the tax.
The tax was never a good idea the way it was proposed by the mayor in the first place and by the way it was presented. A number of BMA members obviously never grasped the concept, as evidenced by their statements and votes. If board members don't understand an issue than it is safe to assume most citizens don't.
Those that pushed the tax, primarily Bisby, Mike Norris, and Greg Sandlin, will ultimately have to answer to the citizens should they decide to run for re-election. Mike Stanton supported the tax up until last night.
But as is true with any significant issue there were winners and losers last night. Maybe not long-term, but certainly short term some came out looking good and some not so good.
The BMA as a whole looks really bad today as they wasted a whole lot of time debating an issue that they obviously didn't fully understand. They passed it without knowing how to bill it, and ultimately that ended up being the reason they used to kill it.
The mayor took the hardest hit as he basically had to admit defeat on a concept that was entirely in the beginning his idea. He attempted to place the blame on the Tullahoma Utilities Board for not being willing to bill the tax, but what organization wants to bill a new tax they have nothing to do with while at the same time trying to sell a product to the same customers.
Why anyone ever expected TUB to get involved in this fiasco I don't understand, and that is not a defense of TUB. As a taxpayer who is funding the LightTUBe service I don't want any extra negative attached to TUB as I want that service to succeed so they can pay off that loan.
TUB was a winner I believe, because their unwillingness to bill the new tax helped kill it, which it seems most citizens were in favor of killing it. TUB takes a lot of negative hits but it appears on this issue they came out looking pretty good to most folks.
Those that own houses worth in excess of $225,000 were losers as the property tax rate was restored to the state-suggested level of $2.29 per $100 of appraised value. Their taxes went up as compared to what it would have been if the garbage tax had passed and the property tax had been set at $1.99, which was the proposal before Tuesday night.
Those that own houses worth less than $225,000 came out ahead as far as city taxes go, since their rate dropped from $2.44 to $2.29 and there is no additional garbage tax.
Of course we are all going to pay $.28 more in county property taxes, but the county tax hike ultimately allowed the BMA to not have to raise property taxes, which they almost certainly would have done had there been no county tax hike.
All in all there was a lot of wasted time and ink on an idea that was ill-conceived to begin with. Hopefully future editions of the BMA will be willing to take more time in thinking and planning issues out more thouroughly than this one was thought out.
Pondering the City Budget
Finally got a chance to watch the entire Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting from last Monday, which featured the second reading of the City of Tullahoma 2010-2011 fiscal budget.
Although the meeting was somewhat chaotic at times, and there were few specifics on total numbers, I think I got the highlights:
The 28 cent property tax increase by the county resulted in some $490,000 additional dollars coming to the city. The school system requested a $174,000 increase in its operating budget, but was only given $124,000 extra as the other $50,000 went to fund charities and non-profits.
The $310,000 left from the $490,000 after the schools got theirs was put towards paving, fixing Grider Stadium, and paying off something called the Halls Tax.
The property tax rate was lowered to $1.99, which I think is a very good thing. Of course that rate is offset by a new $14.68 garbage tax, so those two things come out even if you live in a $224,000 house.
If you live in a less expensive house then your city tax rate just went up. If your house is worth more than that then your city tax rate just went down. Everybody's rate went up from the county.
The city was bailed out in part by the county increase, although there are still significant cuts from last year's budget. Times are tight with no relief in sight and I think the BMA did a pretty good job with what it had to work with.
There is still a third reading scheduled for August 31 and everything other than the property tax rate is still on the table and can be amended. There were third readings in the past where significant changes were made, but during the last five years or so few changes have come on the final reading.
All Things Political Are Subject to Change
While pondering the subject of taxes, which is a really broad subject considering we pay garbage taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, retirement taxes, business taxes, death taxes, state taxes, county taxes...
You get the idea. As I watched the Tullahoma Bored of Mayor and Aldermen discuss the 2011 fiscal budget last Monday night, which included yet another round of opinions about the garbage tax and its relation to the budget, something occured to me.
Remember that as the BMA passed the new tax, they did so with the understanding that they don't yet know how they will bill the new tax. Although the method of billing seems to be only a procedural matter on the front end, the truth is the method of billing will determine who pays the tax in anything other than a single-family dwelling owned by the folks who live in it.
Who pays the electric bill in most rental houses, apartments, and duplexes? The renter does. Who pays the property tax bill in those same residences? The property owner. Are you following me now?
Seems as if that little technicality is the determining factor on whether the people who rent houses pay this tax or those that own rentals pay it. Renters are primarily low-income folks who can't afford to buy houses. Rental owners are almost always higher-income earners.
Now I'm not here to give my opinion as to who ought to pay this new tax, I just know that I have to pay it and I'm not especially happy about that.
Members of the BMA, however, have given their opinions about the tax. What they haven't given is an opinion about how it should be billed, leaving that up to 'staff' to decide.
What? City government staff is going to decide who pays a new tax? I'm not sure that is the best way for the BMA to go on this. If we are going to get hit with a new tax, we at least deserve to have the people we voted into office decide who has to pay it.
Now that is not a negative shot at city staff, in fact I doubt whether they relish the responsibility of determining who pays a new tax. Perhaps the city administrator will consider returning the issue to the BMA to determine how its billed (who pays it).
Or maybe one of the sitting Aldermen will take the initiative to include the issue on the BMA agenda soon and encourage his fellow members that it is the BMA's responsibility to decide who pays a new tax, not city staff's.
Or maybe neither will happen and city staff will decide who pays the tax. Either way, this whole issue has been handled very sloppy and its a good bet that voters won't forget it come the first Thursday in August of next year.
Now about this property tax issue...
Playing Devil's Advocate
Seems I always get twice as many visitors to my little corner of the wired world on days that follow a meeting of the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen. If I learn nothing else from why that is, at least it shows me that you know what one of my real passions is - our city.
I have really tried to stay away from the Garbage Tax issue on here because I have let BMA members know my feelings against the concept. Since, like all but six of you I don't have a vote, that's about all any of us can do. Now that the deed is done we can move on.
Both readings of the ordinance ended with the same vote - Bisby, Norris, Stanton, and Sandlin in favor and Blanks, Eads, and Mathis against. Nobody changed their mind over the two weeks since the first vote, and I think you could spin that fact from either side pretty effectively.
Those who look at it from an alderman's side would seem to be satisfied that all seven had a strong opinion in one direction and they weren't swayed by the significant lobbying that I'm sure has taken place over the last two months. They made up their minds and they voted consistently.
Now if you are a citizen who is against the garbage tax, and you attempted to pursuade an alderman to change his vote, and you know others who did the same, then you've got to be concerned that you no longer have a voice.
However, never lose site of the fact this is a republic and we elect officials to vote on issues. We seldom get a vote on issues, which is actually what I thought should have happened on the garbage issue from the start, a referendum, but evidently we just didn't have time.
Finally, if you are in favor of the new tax then you're happy today. You got your tax. I suspect the happiest people are the ones who own the most commercial property, since their hope is that the property tax is going down. Those who live outside the city and own a business inside really got a double shot of good news. Their business property tax might go down and they don't have to pay the garbage tax.
You see it appears that one key ingrediant missing from this debate from the start was a clear explanation of what the new tax would do in relation to our budget. I give Mayor Pro-Tem Norris a lot of credit in that he focused on the 'revenue neutral' issue early and did his best to explain it, but sometimes great points get buried in BMA meetings by a whole lot of chatter.
There was consistent talk of lowering the property tax to help off-set some or all of this garbage tax from the beginning. The problem was the mayor came out early talking in terms of a possible 10 or 15 cent property tax reduction to go along with his proposed tax. People figured out pretty quick that the numbers just didn't add up.
But Norris was on track. If the board drops the property tax 35 cents on the first budget reading, as they should to make this truely revenue-neutral, then they begin not with the 2.29 the state has set, but with 1.94 as a tax rate, and they begin building their budget from there.
There are positives that could come from the trash, brush, and limb business being separated away from all other city activities. I said could. For one thing the system would have to continue operating for the $1.2 million that the new tax raises. That potentially could keep costs down.
There are pros and cons to almost everything and the garbage tax is no different. The overriding factor above everything else for me is the matter of adding a whole new tax. Once a tax is put into law, much like once a government employee is hired, it becomes very difficult to step back.
Here is the reset. Our old tax rate was $2.44. Because the state says the value of our property has gone up overall as a city, our new rate has been set at 2.29. The state says that 2.29 this year will bring in the same amount as 2.44 last year. That is a similar adjustment that is supposed to be 'revenue neutral'.
But now that the equipment, personnel, facilities, etc that are used for garbage, brush, and limb pick-up will be paid for by the garbage tax; that should take $1.2 million away from our expenses. To match the new revenue there is an expense.
BMA members have consistently said we were about $500,000 short in our proposed budget. All things being equal if we leave the tax rate at $2.29 then we will cover that shortfall and have $700,000 to put towards paving, etc.
If we lower the rate as the mayor suggested then we cover the shortfall but we don't have anything left to go towards less-operational items like paving and facilities.
I'm intentionally not getting into the whole, "if your house cost this much your taxes go down and if not they go up" issue. That has been well documented and explained. Any flat fee for anything always punishes the one with less money, whether its going to the swimming pool, playing organized sports, or running a traffic light.
Look, I'm just thinking out loud here about the different angles of this issue, but it just seems to me that nobody, although Norris got close, really explained this tax completely in regards to how it works where people could understand it. I'm not sure folks would like it even if they did understand it all, but at least there would be less emotion about it. Less talk about what's fair and such.
That is something missing from the BMA right now, someone who can explain complex issues clearly. As board members move into budget talks it will be interesting to see how much, if any, they are willing to adjust that 2.29 property tax rate.
Playing Devil's Advocate
Seems I always get twice as many visitors to my little corner of the wired world on days that follow a meeting of the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen. If I learn nothing else from why that is, at least it shows me that you know what one of my real passions is - our city.
I have really tried to stay away from the Garbage Tax issue on here because I have let BMA members know my feelings against the concept. Since, like all but six of you I don't have a vote, that's about all any of us can do. Now that the deed is done we can move on.
Both readings of the ordinance ended with the same vote - Bisby, Norris, Stanton, and Sandlin in favor and Blanks, Eads, and Mathis against. Nobody changed their mind over the two weeks since the first vote, and I think you could spin that fact from either side pretty effectively.
Those who look at it from an alderman's side would seem to be satisfied that all seven had a strong opinion in one direction and they weren't swayed by the significant lobbying that I'm sure has taken place over the last two months. They made up their minds and they voted consistently.
Now if you are a citizen who is against the garbage tax, and you attempted to pursuade an alderman to change his vote, and you know others who did the same, then you've got to be concerned that you no longer have a voice.
However, never lose site of the fact this is a republic and we elect officials to vote on issues. We seldom get a vote on issues, which is actually what I thought should have happened on the garbage issue from the start, a referendum, but evidently we just didn't have time.
Finally, if you are in favor of the new tax then you're happy today. You got your tax. I suspect the happiest people are the ones who own the most commercial property, since their hope is that the property tax is going down. Those who live outside the city and own a business inside really got a double shot of good news. Their business property tax might go down and they don't have to pay the garbage tax.
You see it appears that one key ingrediant missing from this debate from the start was a clear explanation of what the new tax would do in relation to our budget. I give Mayor Pro-Tem Norris a lot of credit in that he focused on the 'revenue neutral' issue early and did his best to explain it, but sometimes great points get buried in BMA meetings by a whole lot of chatter.
There was consistent talk of lowering the property tax to help off-set some or all of this garbage tax from the beginning. The problem was the mayor came out early talking in terms of a possible 10 or 15 cent property tax reduction to go along with his proposed tax. People figured out pretty quick that the numbers just didn't add up.
But Norris was on track. If the board drops the property tax 35 cents on the first budget reading, as they should to make this truely revenue-neutral, then they begin not with the 2.29 the state has set, but with 1.94 as a tax rate, and they begin building their budget from there.
There are positives that could come from the trash, brush, and limb business being separated away from all other city activities. I said could. For one thing the system would have to continue operating for the $1.2 million that the new tax raises. That potentially could keep costs down.
There are pros and cons to almost everything and the garbage tax is no different. The overriding factor above everything else for me is the matter of adding a whole new tax. Once a tax is put into law, much like once a government employee is hired, it becomes very difficult to step back.
Here is the reset. Our old tax rate was $2.44. Because the state says the value of our property has gone up overall as a city, our new rate has been set at 2.29. The state says that 2.29 this year will bring in the same amount as 2.44 last year. That is a similar adjustment that is supposed to be 'revenue neutral'.
But now that the equipment, personnel, facilities, etc that are used for garbage, brush, and limb pick-up will be paid for by the garbage tax; that should take $1.2 million away from our expenses. To match the new revenue there is an expense.
BMA members have consistently said we were about $500,000 short in our proposed budget. All things being equal if we leave the tax rate at $2.29 then we will cover that shortfall and have $700,000 to put towards paving, etc.
If we lower the rate as the mayor suggested then we cover the shortfall but we don't have anything left to go towards less-operational items like paving and facilities.
I'm intentionally not getting into the whole, "if your house cost this much your taxes go down and if not they go up" issue. That has been well documented and explained. Any flat fee for anything always punishes the one with less money, whether its going to the swimming pool, playing organized sports, or running a traffic light.
Look, I'm just thinking out loud here about the different angles of this issue, but it just seems to me that nobody, although Norris got close, really explained this tax completely in regards to how it works where people could understand it. I'm not sure folks would like it even if they did understand it all, but at least there would be less emotion about it. Less talk about what's fair and such.
That is something missing from the BMA right now, someone who can explain complex issues clearly. As board members move into budget talks it will be interesting to see how much, if any, they are willing to adjust that 2.29 property tax rate.
The Road Gets Bumpy at Times
When serving in public office it is important to understand that there are smooth times and there are rough times. If you are lucky you have more smooth than rough. That has been the case for members of the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen the last couple of years, but now bumps, big bumps, are in the road.
From 2005-2008 the BMA took a $1.6 million deficit, a failed school bond citizen vote, a radical element that fired the city attorney live during a meeting, and a number of lawsuits with the county government and turned them into a balanced budget, $12 million in school capital improvements, an increase in reserve funds, millions in recreation improvements, significantly less controversy, and settled the annexation lawsuit and the school funds lawsuit.
In the past couple of years the controversies have been few. For two consecutive years the Board of Education has not requested any increase in funds from the city. That in itself has eliminated what was just a few short years ago a consistent source of much public comment and reaction.
The BMA wasn't able to balance its budget this past year, being forced to use hundreds of thousands of dollars in reserve funds, but little was said about that. Overall, there has been little criticism of or even comment about the BMA by the press in the last two years, a far cry from what we experienced three and four years ago.
All that goodwill and harmony, and lack of the local press properly doing its job as a watchdog for the citizens in regards to government, has now come to an abrupt end it would seem.
Now we have the editorial writers and the mayor battling things out in black and white. Everybody has an opinion about how to squeeze more dollars out of residents of the city who own property.
The BMA is severely split on the concept of a garbage tax. Statements have been made by almost all members of the BMA to the effect that our only option is to raise more revenue, they just can't agree on how. The press wants a straight property tax increase to cover the $450,000 shortfall. Some members of the BMA have suggested a reduction in property taxes, but none have made a motion to that effect.
That tells me that they have given up on any other options, as in cutting spending. Evidently our city government is operating at its maximum efficiency, and there is no waste and there are no positions that aren't critical to the mission. Our organization structure must be just what we need, and our money must be all being spent exactly where it should.
The mayor even said during the July 12 meeting that in past years the BMA had taken the budget line by line and made adjustments, but he assured them that there was no reason to do that anymore because there was nothing left to adjust.
But wait. Today I learn that if they don't get more revenue out of us, the property owners, then we will be in trouble when it comes to paving, maintenance, reserves, equipment, and salaries for city personnel.
Who knew? The casual observer would have thought that we were in great shape these past couple of years. At least now some of our real issues are coming to light and we are learning that not every BMA is capable of steering our ship through rough waters.
Yeah guys, this is where the road gets bumpy.
All This and Metro Too?
In case you haven't been paying close attention to your city and county governments during the last couple of months, its time to catch up on where we stand and what is being talked about by those governing bodies.
On the city level the July 12 Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting should be very interesting, with the subject of the Mayor's proposed garbage tax taking front and center stage. If the state has set a certified tax rate for the city, then the BMA can begin its serious budget deliberations. If not they must wait on the tax rate before passing a budget for the fiscal year.
On the county side, as with the city, there are serious budget deficits that must be dealt with. Although there has been very little discussion about this in Tullahoma, the recent edition of the Saturday Independent features significant discussion on both a Wheel Tax and a potential push to once again try to force a vote on consolidating into a Metro form of government.
I strongly encourage you to read the articles at TSINews.com. I do want to point out one significant section regarding metro government.
County Commisioner Lee Duckett, a strong proponent of metro government, has put forth the proposition that the county could petition the state government to change its rules for voting metro.
"Under current state law, a metropolitan government can’t be created in Coffee County without the support of both Tullahoma and rural voters. The law defines metro government as the union of the rural areas of the county with the “Principal City” in the county.
The “Principal City” is generally interpreted as the city in the county with the largest population, rather than the county seat. If the “Principal City” were defined as the county seat, a charter could be approved by the voters of Manchester and the rural areas.
Duckett agreed that for metro to happen here, it might become necessary to ask the General Assembly to alter wording in the state statute that provides for the creation of metropolitan governments to allow the term “Principal City” to mean either the county seat or the city with the largest population.
“Manchester, if it did become the principal city,” would likely support metro a second time, he said.
I will reserve commentary on these developments for now, other than to point out the fact that if the citizens of Tullahoma, Manchester, and Coffee County continue to sit back, not vote, and let candidates run un-opposed for office, then you are going wake up one day and face some real surprises.
Taxes
We hear that the county government is considering a number of new revenue generators (that is code for new taxes). Combine that with our local government's drive to add a new garbage tax, and it appears both levels are taking the easy way out - tax the people.
The county mayor has thrown out the dredded 'Wheel Tax' term, something that the citizens of this county have voted down twice. I think they use that when they really want to pass something else. It makes the other alternatives seem reasonable.
The almost $2 million deficit that the county government is projecting is absolutely unexceptable. Our county has been ridden with scandal in recent years throughout the government, and its conduct during the school lawsuit and the first-responder issues were very detrimental to relations between the city and county.
The city is also projecting a deficit, and you should be familiar with its proposed garbage tax fee and 'revenue neutral' claims. We'll see how the votes swing on that issue, being raised again by the mayor after a 3-3 tie vote on it previously.
A number of political careers stand to be tarnished if these taxes go through. We the people are being taxed enough and its time government on the city and county level learned to operate more efficiently. Business as usual seems to be the new order of the day and we just can't afford that anymore.
Admitting a New Spin on Trash
You will seldom read on this blog that the local print media has served the citizens of Tullahoma well. Our one local paper is extremely biased to the left and almost never provides both sides of an issue, be it local or national.
Then there is the fact that when I served on the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, they pounded me with negative editorials in response to things I wrote on this blog. At the same time they wouldn't allow me to respond with an editorial, and they wouldn't quote the blog directly. I thought it was poor journalism and quite unprofessional.
But times change and we evolve, and I am not a grudge holder. I realize they have their political ties and their agendas, and like this blog they can say anything they want using the media outlet they own.
With that said, I highly recommend that you read the lead story posted Sunday on their web site - TullahomaNews.com. Writer Brian Justice has done an outstanding job of breaking down and explaining the effects of the proposed garbage tax and associated proposed reductions in the property tax.
Although I haven't seen a print edition from Sunday, I suspect this story is the lead story, or at least a front-page story. It should be, because it completely explains the effects of this proposed tax on different levels of home values.
In summary, if the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem can garnish four votes, those who own a house worth more than $192,000 will get a TAX BREAK, while those who own a home valued at less than that will get a TAX INCREASE.
I don't know the breakdown of the price of homes in Tullahoma and the percentage of folks who fall in each range mentioned above, but my guess would be the number of homes valued at less than $192,000 would far outnumber the homes worth more than that.
The first vote on this issue ended in a 3-3 tie, which means it failed. The BMA will vote again on it as the Mayor has decided to re-package his proposal and bring it again. Alderman Mike Stanton, who was not present at the first vote, will be heavily lobbied by both sides.
I strongly encourage you to contact each of the BMA members and urge them to vote against this garbage tax proposal. Each year the BMA has the option of raising or lowering the property tax rate as it deems necessary, but if this garbage tax becomes law it will never go away. New taxes never do.
Walking the Stadium
A portion of the past week was spent examining some of our new government facilities, primarily the THS auditorium and the now-completed Wilkins Stadium. Both facilities are extremely nice, and if properly maintained each should serve the city well for 50 years.
The addition of the completed, painted track and the Quarterback Club concession stand and visitor restrooms, plus new fencing all around and no visible gravel, combine to make the stadium look great. Now we can begin to give the place some character and turn it into a real home field advantage for our teams.
The auditorium is stunning in its modern design and advanced sound and lighting, plus the air flow system is specially designed for just that type of facility. It simply looks great and you should pay a visit and see where your almost $2 million went.
It's impossible for me not to see the irony in those two projects being complete, with the new East Lincoln well on its way, while at the same time our Mayor is pleading in the media for his fellow BMA members and the community to climb on board his garbage tax proposal.
The BMA will have its hands full over the next month determining a budget for the coming fiscal year in the wake of falling sales tax revenues, fire and police personnel shortages, a swimming pool and baseball stadium that need serious attention, lagging paving funds and more potholes than ever, and the list goes on and on.
Mine has been a voice expressing my opinions regarding local politics on this blog since it began in the summer of 2005, but honestly I've decided to just watch and see how this budget plays out. I'm considering another run for office in the future and the votes of current board members will be watched closely and duely noted.
So far nobody has produced a copy of a proposed budget, and until that happens its pretty hard to know what to expect, other than what has been highly publicized by the local press. I would expect the city to place the proposed budget on the new website as soon as possible so citizens can make judgements and form informed opinions.
Based on the chatter I hear and a couple of negative letters to the editor in the local press, it appears public opinion is not in favor of the garbage tax proposal. Neither am I.
I am very happy to see the new auditorium open because it is something that as a member of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen I worked extremely hard to get done. It is a great facility and our kids deserve to enjoy it.
It seems there are members of the BMA that want to remove the parking space behind the Frazier-McEwen pavilion to create the proposed new playground that the Rotary clubs want to build. Only now we know they want a lot from the city, primarily in the area of manpower and machinery.
The new Tullahoma Area Economic Development Corporation seems to be breezing right through with very few questions being asked. It is asking for $50,000 funding.
A committee has been formed to determine what is required to refurbish Grider Stadium, which really needs some work. An estimated price from a member of the committee directly to me was between $150,000 and $500,000
A committee was formed awhile back to determine whas is required to refurbish the outdoor swimming pool at D.W. Wilson community center. Best I remember the price was close to that of the stadium. Both projects have the option of a less-expensive upgrade that will keep them running for a few years to a complete facelift that could hold us for maybe 20 years.
Then there is the Cedar Lane widening, which the BMA has already spent $200,000 on. We have no idea how much, if any, the government will help with that project.
I'm not suggesting any of these proposals are bad, in fact I believe most of them are needed and legitimate. All I do is ask the questions where is the money coming from? We are over $300,000 short in this year's budget AFTER cutting over $800,000 from it a couple of months ago.
Your representatives are going to vote on a budget in June. I strongly encourage you to get a copy of the proposed budget when its released. Let the BMA know where you stand on these issues, because if nobody complains then they might pass them all.
The Taxman
I was pleased to read The Tullahoma News editorial in Sunday's edition regarding the Mayor's proposed garbage tax. Although I don't agree with the suggestion that a property tax decrease is insignificant, at least we have the local press giving an opinion, which seems to be quite rare in recent years.
We know enough about the proposals now to begin to examine their potential effect on our citizens. In my opinion the argument for a new garbage tax falls hollow, especially with the attempt to combine it with a slight property tax decrease, implying that one offsets the other. The paper got that right.
The numbers say citizens will be paying more taxes to the city on average, and the money collected from this garbage tax and property taxes would go to the same place. It's just another tax.
It seems logical that in this unique time, with tax revenues falling for a considerable time now, that governments are running low on funds. I understand that cuts are being proposed, and it remains to be seen how the vote and the numbers end up in that regard.
I am in favor of the property tax decrease, as my history of votes during my time as an alderman clearly shows. The newspaper also critized our property tax decrease in 2007, saying it was insignificant.
This is a time when government should be examining ways to cut the size of itself more, not considering taking more money from citizens to continue to feed it's increasing size. The federal, state, and local government all are proposing new taxes. This endless cycle of tax and spend must stop.
Debt is also a primary concern, especially on the local side. The Mayor indicates that tax incremental financing will allow the city to borrow money and repay it with future tax revenues. Since when is that a new concept? Isn't that how government always operates?
In the last five years our city has borrowed $5 million for city capital projects, which included D.W. Wilson, the Johnson Lane soccer complex, the purchase and renovation of the old county health building, etc.
Tullahoma also borrowed $17 million to finance the LightTUBe project and $16 million to build the new football stadium, auditorium, and elementary school. I think those were worthy projects but our debt is very high.
But it seems the suggestion is now to borrow money to widen Cedar Lane using TIF. I don't buy the suggestion that increased property tax revenues from property on that road will pay for its widening. That is not how government traditionally works and there is no reason to expect it to work that way in this situation. If the numbers support that then I would like to see the numbers.
We must as a city take a closer look at how our government is set up. Are we operating at the highest efficiency with the least number of employees? Are we using all of our resources to their maximum benefit? Are we getting the most out of each tax dollar? Are our elected officials willing to put in the time and make the tough decisions to keep services at an accetable level without raising taxes?
The time for budget votes is fast approaching, and the final decisions will be highly influenced by opinions that citizens express to the seven people who sit on the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. This is my expression. I sincerely hope you will make the effort to express yours.
Well the candidates are set for this year's local election and the options are pretty slim, in fact the lack of challengers is both surprising and disappointing to me.
On the Board of Mayor and Aldermen it looks like Mike Norris and James Eads will both serve another three-year term without opposition. I like both gentlemen and believe that both have done a good job and served the city well.
At the same time it is surprising to me that there were no challengers, considering the high rate of turnover we have had in recent years. That turnover has served the city very well and it remains to be seen if this year is the beginning of another cycle of 20-year politicians or just a bump in the road.
On the Board of Education front we have incumbent Linda Thoma running again, as well as Clyde Smith, Jr., who served a number of terms before stepping aside two years ago. Duane Graddy and Sharon Vance are also running, with Graddy making his first attempt and Ms. Vance seeking a seat after multiple unsuccessful attempts.
After significant turnover during the last two elections it remains to be seen if voters still want more turnover on the school board or if they are satisfied with the direction of recent years.
I'm not sure what it says about our city with the lack of candidates. Does it mean that those currently in office are doing a job that is satisfactory to the majority of voters? Does it mean that new candidates aren't willing to take on incumbents? Does it mean nobody really cares? I don't know. Do you?
It Happened So Fast
For me its not about whether the Health Care bill is good for the country or not. It's about a series of events over the last 18 months that have fundamentally changed our country, and I don't believe as a whole they have made us better. In fact, I believe we are seeing a troubling plunge into socialism.
While I hesitate to throw that word around, it seems obvious to me that we are headed towards a European-style government based on what the government now controls.
The presence and growth of private industry is the backbone of capitalism. When the government takes over private industry its socialism, and the government now controls huge portions of our largest private industries.
The government owns over 50% of the domestic auto industry, they can tell financial companies how much to pay their employees, they completely control the student loan program now, they are going to fine you if you don't have health insurance.
The difference now is that on that last one you don't have any choice. You don't have to buy a car, or get a student loan, or do business with financial companies. But you HAVE to buy insurance or you get fined. That is so fundamentally different than anything we have ever known and it establishes a clear pattern that I don't see slowing down.
What was so wrong with America that we needed all this complete change? It is only the most powerful, wealthy, blessed country in the history of the world. Yes we have some problems that need to be addressed, but a complete makeover? Why?
I don't think I'm a far right-wing person politically, and I'll be the first to admit that Republicans had opportunities to fix things a number of times since Reagan took office in 1980 and they haven't. The things they claim to champion when they are out of power don't seem to get solved when they have the power.
The Democrats on the other hand have been very successful in pushing their agenda through when they have the votes. From Social Security to Welfare to Medicare and now forced health insurance, they keep marching on slowly, deliberately riding the 'social justice' and 'progess' train to less liberty for all of us.
We are at the true crossroads right now as far as which way America is going to go in the next 25 years. Are we going to keep those in power that will continue to chip away at our liberty, or will we balance the power in November and hope that conservatives will act instead of just talk.
I think we function much better when power is balanced. That's why our founders set it up that way, and it built us to where we are. We shouldn't feel guilty about our success and we shouldn't apologize for leading the world. I mean we won the wars right? Our way is a proven successful way right?
I believe in capitalism, personal responsibility, free markets, strong defense, and the dream any of us can achieve whatever we aspire to do if we are willing to work hard enough at it. History is very clear, at least to me, that societies that don't function on those principles ultimately fail.
Continue the Madness
First I want to thank the Board of Education member who took the time to attempt to explain to me what the purpose and goals of the changes at THS are about. I can't say I understood it all, but I sure do appreciate the effort.
We agreed that it is becoming more and more difficult to run a local school system due to all the mandates and directives from both the federal government and the state government.
Combine those factors with shrinking county and state sales tax revenue and the challenges that school systems face are getting tougher every day. We must evolve in order to continue to provide the high-quality education that is currently available in Tullahoma.
I am loving March Madness through the first half of day one. Murray St. deserved to beat Vandy and Florida didn't earn a win either. The SEC has not represented well this afternoon. Hopefully Kentucky and Tennessee can bring a little more tonight.
Back when TUB was proposing LightTUBe there was discussion about the possibility of AT & T bringing fiber optic to Tullahoma. Remember at the time lobbyists were working hard at the state level to get laws changed to allow basically anybody to bring cable anywhere. Those laws were changed.
Now we are seeing the telecommunications giant running fiber optic in our city, and no matter how you spin it that cannot be good news for TUB. They still have a long way to go to meet their break-even point of 3500 subscribers, and now with more competition that number is certainly not any easier to achieve.
I won't speculate on how the vote might have gone had the BMA known that AT & T would be running fiber optics and offering the same services as LightTUBe within a year of TUB offering those services, but it would seem that knowledge might have had an effect on votes.
But it goes without saying that you can't look backwards you must look forward. TUB will now have to work harder than ever to reach its goal and begin paying back the $17 million dollars that the city borrowed to finance LightTUBe.
Random Ruminations
I was thinking...which can be dangerous at times.
I read in the paper where potholes were becoming a big issue with all the bad weather we have had in recent months. It would seem most anyone would have seen this coming. It was a no-brainer.
Recently the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted to freeze almost $800,000 in spending to help balance the budget this year. One of the items included in that freeze was around $250,000 in paving. That is bound to put a significant dent in our ability to fix potholes during the next few months.
Should we spend money on any luxury items while we can't afford to fix potholes? It is not like the potholes are going away or are going to get any better. They will only get worse and bigger. I'm just saying...what is the priority? If you have opinions about spending priorities please share them with the BMA.
There are so many mandates and changes being forced upon our school system right now by both the federal government and the state government that they are becoming harder and harder to even keep up with.
I'm not sure what to make of the new ninth-grade scenario that Tullahoma is creating, nor do I fully understand the new direction of relying less on actual grades to graduate and more on 'Social Advances'. What does that even mean?
I trust that the Board of Education is doing the best it can to meet the challenges that all these changes and mandates present. If you have opinions about our school system please make the effort to share them with the BOE.
Finally, we are two weeks away from the deadline for candidates for local offices and as far as I know only one BMA candidate and two BOE candidates have turned in completed paperwork. The apathy is disappointing.
It's Time For Her to Fly
I have to admit that I have been dreading this day since the moment I agreed to do it, which was back in early fall 2009 I believe.
"It" is my 17-year old daughter Alivia's trip to Europe with a group from Tullahoma High School, and they fly out Friday evening at 6pm from Nashville, with a scheduled arrival time of about 10am Saturday morning at Heathrow Airport in London.
They will visit London, Paris, and Rome during the nine-day trip, with special tours at all the top attractions that you would expect. It could be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for her and I couldn't pass up the opportunity for her when it came.
But now that the day is here for her to go I can honestly say that I am extremely nervous about it, for she is so precious to me. Alivia has been a tremendous joy for her mother and myself since the day she was born, and the thought of her on the other side of the world without the protection of parents is very unsettling.
But I will put on the good face as we send her off tomorrow. I have asked God's protection around her and her group, and I will trust He will provide that. I ask you to pray the same.
I guess this is training for 18 months from now when we will pack her up and head her off to college, probably either in Knoxville or Oxford. Wow, it seems like yesterday that she was that little three year old who talked like an adult and never stopped smiling.
Everyday that passes seems to be shorter than the last, and with every passing day I learn to appreciate where I am, who I am, and what I have. God has richly blessed me far beyond anything I deserve, and I am starting to realize more and more that any second spent lamenting past mistakes or hoping for future glory is simply a second wasted not appreciating today.
Where Are the Candidates
Here we are less than a month away from the cut-off date for local candidates to file their petitions to run in the August election and we are facing a blast from the past that is not a positive development for our future.
Let me begin this by stressing how this is not a negative statement on the current candidates. They cannot control who runs against them, and as incumbents they are relieved that at least at this point they have no opposition. I doubt the newspapers and channel sixes of the area are thrilled, but the incumbents have got to love it.
This year finds us taking a big step backwards politically as a city, a return to the not-so-glorious days of the 1990's and early 2000's when both Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen members and Tullahoma Board of Education members often ran unapposed.
The last time two alderman candidates ran unapposed was 2004 when Lane Curlee and Phil Trimble glided into office without opposition. Since then we have seen a dramatic shift in incumbent decisions. Not one incumbent alderman has won re-election, and only one has even ran for re-election.
In 2005 Troy Bisby beat Steve Cope for mayor, and Janice Bowling and myself won the aldermen spots without incumbent opposition, although there were a number of candidates vying for the two spots.
In 2006 neither Jim Waters nor Richard Darden ran for re-election, with Jonathan James and Sandy Lindermen claiming the two seats. The same thing happened in 2007, with Curlee and Trimble limping out of office after a bizarre political year and James Eads and Mike Norris triumphing over a solid group of candidates.
Then 2008 came along and I made the decision not to seek a second consecutive term while Mrs. Bowling ran unsuccessfully for mayor. Jerry Mathis and Mike Stanton won against a small group of candidates.
In 2009 Mrs. Lindermen became the only incumbent to run for re-election to the BMA since 2003, although her bid was not successful as Jimmy Blanks and Greg Sandlin won. I'll bet never before in Tullahoma's history have we had four consecutive years of not only the turnover of both alderman seats, but political newcomers winning those seats.
All this activity with incumbents not running and newcomers winning during the past five years is a stark contrast to the previous 15 years, when Curlee, Cope, and Waters dominated the board.
I have no real point here except to point out how the dramatic events of 2004 and 2005 swept in a mostly-new set of leaders for our city. The issues facing the new BMA in 2005 were incredibly complex and controversial, yet we managed to systematically solve them one by one.
You as a voter certainly did your part. The outrage you expressed about events such as the firing of city attorney Steve Worsham and the Grundy Street Land Sale helped pave the way for this new wave of leaders to emerge.
But just as quickly as all that change happened, and our city went from being $1.6 million short on budget and having protesters marching around city hall and having the state Attorney General rule that multiple laws were broken by previous sessions of the BMA; to having balanced budgets and funding multiple recreation projects and school projects and bringing sanity back to city politics, we now seem to have fallen right back into complacency.
The natural ebb and flow of things would seem to dictate that we were bound to see a year when there wasn't a lot of controversy and when incumbents were confident in their re-election chances and when potential newcomer candidates didn't feel their chances of knocking off an incumbent were very good.
My hope is that this is simply a hiccup and not the beginning of a trend. We have seen what happens when folks stay in office too long and it is not pretty and we are still recovering from it. I'm guessing incumbents will not have such a smooth path to re-election, should they choose to seek it, in 2011.
What Are the Priorities?
The Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen met last night and there were a couple of very interesting items that were discussed. One in particular causes me to wonder exactly what the priorities of the BMA are in regards to funding.
On the one hand the BMA voted to begin the process of studying what it will take to get the Joel Ferrell outdoor swimming back up to standards. The pool is in pretty bad shape. Estimates for fixing it range from $350,000 to just get it fixed to up to $650,000 to get it suitable for competitive swim meets.
At the same time the board voted to cut approximately $700,000 from this year's budget because of declining sales tax revenues. One of the items cut, and the only one that was discussed, was street paving. A number of the board members commented on how paving continues to get cut and how we don't need to cut paving.
So let me get this straight. We are cutting paving money and other previously-budgeted money that supposedly was budgeted for essential day-to-day operation of the city while at the same time we are proceeding with plans to spend almost the same amount on a swimming pool?
Don't get me wrong. I am all for a city swimming pool. But let's keep in mind that we have just spent almost $2 million basically rebuilding the indoor pool and the entire D.W. Wilson Community Center. So we have basically a brand new pool facility in place.
If it was your house and your outdoor pool was in bad condition while at the same time your driveway was crumbling, and you had an indoor pool that was basically brand new, would you be studying how to fix the outdoor pool or would you spend your money fixing the driveway?
One of the most difficult decisions for BMA members is where to spend money when money is really tight. Based on the fact the budget has just been cut and revenues are under projections, we must assume that money is really tight.
So where is the priority here? Is it in a luxury item that a limited number of citizens use or is it in a basic, infrastructure item that everyone uses everyday and is essential for our city to function properly?
Although I hope we are able to pave all our roads and have a first-class outdoor swimming pool, right now that doesn't seem like a reasonable possibility, based on comments by BMA members last night. Remember, they voted 7-0 to cut paving funds from the budget.
The BMA also voted to begin a feasibility study on what it would take for the city to have its own Emergency Medical Services operation. I think that is a good thing and we should begin that study immediately. Based on what has happened during the past few months with the county, we should know all our options when the health and safety of our citizens are in question.
Enough Said
Sometimes a person just has to speak his peace, and as a private citizen who pays for this small piece of the global communications network I appreciate the ability and opportunity to say what I think.
If I was an elected official then my approach would have been different, but since I am not then I felt compelled to do my best to influence those who are elected.
Without knowing how this issue will ultimately play out, my hope is that somehow the city is able to convince the county that they continue to be short-sighted in their view of what is best for Tullahoma. I urge our city government to take whatever steps are necessary to insure the safety of our citizens.
On a bigger scale this tragedy has highlighted the continued disintegration of the relationship between Tullahoma and the county government. For some reason over the past 35-40 years the city has put more and more of its responsibilities in the hands of the county. The ambulance situation is one instance, along with the industrial board consolidation.
I realize that the state of Tennessee has, through multiple legislative actions, encouraged us to become more of one county than two cities plus a county. However, it is now apparent that in some instances that relationship is not working well.
Where do we go from here? I'm not sure, but status-quo should no longer be an option. Let's take a strong look at the original legislation that created the Ambulance Authority and insure that the balance of membership has been retained. If not then let's fix it.
I encourage each of you as Tullahoma citizens to contact your elected respresentatives and let them know your feelings on how they should proceed.
Click here for the email address of each member of the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen.
Open Letter to Tullahoma News, BMA, Citizens of Coffee County
It is too late for one family for the City of Tullahoma and Coffee County Ambulance Authority to reach an agreement on when the Tullahoma Fire Department is called out to medical emergencies, but before another emergency happens the city has the responsibility to do whatever it must to correct the arrangement immediately and protect its citizens.
Tullahoma's citizens have watched with amazement and disappointment as the relationship between our city and county governments has deteriorated. It seemed to begin when the city sued the county for its rightful rural sales tax school funds and has continued until now a person has died. And yes, it does appear that the two situations are related.
The city has appeared to do everything it could to try and resolve this situation, while being met at every turn with delays, excuses, and resistance.
Considering that County Commissioner Jimmy Bradford, who represents Tullahoma from the 17th district and is the Chairman of the Ambulance Authority, has stated publicly that he is the person who will decide how the TFD will be used in emergency situations, it would seem Mr. Bradford asked to be and should be held responsible for his lack of action.
Do we know if the fire department, which was on scene three minutes after it was called, could have saved the life? No we don't. We do know that it took the ambulance 16 minutes to get there, and we have been consistently told by those involved in this issue that a heart attack in particular is critical in the first five or six minutes.
We as a city must now determine a quick course of action to solve this issue and hopefully insure that this type of situation doesn't happen again. Our citizens deserve more than us waiting to see how the county will respond. They have had their chance and we have seen their response, which was to use the safety of our citizens as a political tool.
The lack of action and stalling of this important issue by those in positions of authority with the county, while they were being consistently urged to move quickly because of the obvious worst-case scenario, is unacceptable. They owe the taxpayers a complete explanation, and as a taxpayer I demand one.
I ask the Tullahoma Board of Mayor and Aldermen to take immediately emergency action to resolve this issue. Perhaps a court order authorizing the TFD to be a first responder until an official agreement can be reached is a possibility. Perhaps the BMA voting to begin responding without the Ambulance Authorities' permission is the answer.
If there is any option the BMA can take that would at least temporarily result in immediate first responder status, then I urge the BMA to consider that action. Don't wait until we are faced with another situation.
A Split Vote is Not a Compromise
There are very few 4-way stop intersections that feature enough traffic to provide significant fundraising opportunities.
Mayor Troy Bisby, along with Aldermen Mike Norris, Jimmy Blanks, and Greg Sandlin voted to end the only significant fund raising activity of the American Legion Auxillary, which offers services to aid disabled veterans, as well as a number of other charitable organizations that use intersection solicitation to raise funds. In my humble opinion this was not a wise decision and needs to be corrected in the near future.
The Mayor says the BMA reached a compromise on the issue, but it must be pointed out that a 4-3 vote is not a compromise. A compromise is when all parties agree. Aldermen James Eads, Jerry Mathis, and Mike Stanton didn't agree with the new solicitation rules, and I agree with their 'no' vote.
I realize that there have been occassional issues with solicitation at red lights. I realize people sometimes complain about things they don't like, and I know as well as anyone that when citizens take the time and effort to personally complain to elected officials about an issue that as an elected official you feel compelled to act on those complaints.
Do the complaints of a few outweigh the benefits that the effected organizations provide? In my opinion they do not. I have no objection to ball teams, church youth groups, etc. not being allowed to solicit at red light intersections. These groups are often participating in the practice for the first time and they sometimes don't follow the rules.
But groups like the Shriners and the American Legion Auxillary are very experienced at intersection solicitation and I have never, ever felt inconvenienced or threatened by them in any way. In fact I appreciate the opportunity to donate to these groups and the ease with which I'm able to help.
This is a long-standing tradition in Tullahoma that is being crushed by our city government because of the complaints of a few. The issue of safety is being used as the basis for this action, but there is no record of any injuries happening during intersection solicitation that I am aware of.
Although this issue may not seem like a major, front-burner type of issue right now considering that nobody is asking to solicit in this weather, you can bet when spring hits it will be a different story. Wait until a couple of our youth baseball teams are getting ready to head to Florida to represent our city or state.
How much money do these legitimate, charitable organizations raise when they solicit? What are the raised funds actually used for? These are questions that I haven't heard answered that seem relevant.
How many citizens have actually compained about the practice with their goal being to end it? While I was an alderman I don't recall anyone seeking to end the practice.
I want to strongly encourage the board to take another look at this issue. Allow select groups to solicit at red-light intersections. Force groups to come before the BMA to request their permit if necessary, but don't destroy the single mechanism that a number of extremely important charitable organizations have to raise much-needed funds.
Blog Archives 1 © 2005-2010 C. Scott Shasteen. All rights reserved. |
Call me anytime
"The View From the Pressbox", my sports blog, can be found by clicking here
Murphy Fair's Tennessee High School Football website, which features 'The Guru', is here
Tullahoma Wildcat football fans can follow their 'Cats at the Wildcat Web |
||
|
|
||||