Portland, Tennessee Blog

I have watched the Council meeting now several times now and have to say...I was very pleased with Erin McLerran's request for more time and requesting more information and putting the brakes on the Council, so to speak !! She should get an award for that, in my opinion. Luther did a great job of easing that situation and did it with "class". I thought Councilman Hobdy appeared to be trying to control his impatience and appear "cool" and "business-like" in spite of his request passed not being voted on quickly..and I'm very happy for Erin McLerran's request for more time on this issue.
I am sorry now that I did not vote for Erin. I think she is going to turn out to be very good for the Council.
Great job, Erin !

Judy- It's my understanding that any council member can bring any item to the council for discussion. I believe they have an agreement that it should run through a committee and the committee's vote must be announced at the meeting (which it was).

I think this was finance committee. The committee has no power other than to recommend to council so I see no conflict there. The way to avoid conflict is for that member to abstain from voting in the council vote when they have a personal interest. Who knows....he might have done that.

After watching the Council meeting again, I feel that I owe Mrs. McLeran an apology. As I watched more closely the second time, I realized that she was simply asking for more time and more information. She "didn't do her homework" because the text hadn't been passed to her!! I am sincerely sorry that I put a negative twist to the situation.

Perhaps she should work on being brief and consise, stating exactly what she means, and no more. Thank God for Luther Bratton's ability to cut through to the point, and his compassionate way of making someone see things differently, without making them feel dumb. I, obviously, do not possess this ability. Wish I did.

Keep trying, Aldermen (and women!) You have been given a huge responsibility, one that will have an impact far beyond the next two or three years. Thank you for serving our community in this way.

(And if you have a secret, personal agenda, shame on you!!)

hrl - Yes I did see where the councilperson who went against the committee and brought it anyway to the board, and I have to ask myself when the council was told that the committee wasn't in agreement to bring it to the council why did they allow it for discussion.

As for the ownership of adjecent property by this councilman and his family..... this is why I am a strong supporter of NOT allowing council persons to be subject to a conflict of Interest and this person perhaps should not be on this committee and abstain from voting on the situation. - Just my opinion.

Judy,

I agree with you that the councilperson who asked for more time did the right thing. There is nothing wrong with saying she needs more time to gather information and I applaud her also. But don't blame the committee! If you had seen the other 10% of the discussion on this issue (lol!) you would have seen the councilman who brought this to council (and who chairs that committee) say it did not have committee support. He was honest about that. He chose to bring it to council on his own. The reason the committee didn't support it is probably because they didn't have the information either. It was provided later to all the council. The committee met its responsibility by NOT recommending to bring this to council.

Now, the problem may be that one council member appears to want this very badly. And as someone posted before, he and his family own alot of property in the Jackson Rd area adjacent to this proposed improvement.

I just caught the repeat of the meeting, probably 90% of the issue about Jackson Road. First let me say that I was not a supporter of this candidate when she ran for that position.

From what I seen she wanted more facts on this situation, apraisal information, how they came up with the dollar figure, the possibility of more than one land owner who may have an interest in the subject property, etc. etc. the committee that brought the widening project to the council to approve it did not have the needed documentation available for her to make a clear conscious decision.

In her asking for another month so she can better understand and clearly know what was taking place is by far not out of line. I aplaude her for this stance! I think although this project has been going on for years it is the committees responsibility to have the facts available on any given situation they are bringing forward to the council for approval.
Just my opinion! - Judy

If you missed the meeting, you missed quite a show. Be sure to catch it when it repeats this weekend. The Council spent at least 1/2 hour to 45 minutes explaining to one of the new Council members the history of the straightening (or NOT straightening) of Jackson Road and how the land for the new easement will be acquired.

Sounded to me like someone didn't do her homework!

Anyone know how it went tonight at the City Council meeting? I didn't get to go tonight....did they vote to move City Hall ?

Mack & DeeAnna
Yes it is not comforting to know that at times you may have to go to those extremes to protect your interests, plus the individual we were up against made the situation even harder. Unfortunately in many aspects of life it takes more than a few people to bring about change. The point I wanted to make is that if just a hand full of people show up at a meeting to voice their concerns it will likely have no impact on the final outcome, especially something along the line of moving City Hall. However, if an army of people show up it does get noticed and will likely have an impact. Alot of times it only takes impacting a few on the council to open a new can of worms and in turn changes the ruling!

Yes, it's a real shame that the Council had to be forced to what was right. From local governments to the federal govt. it's the same story.

Mack, you summed it up perfectly.

Judy, congrats to you guys, but I think it is sad that you all had to go to that extreme to get your elected city council to hear you and do what was best for the majority in that case. We all know the fear that a handful of landowners have over the local government here. So much could be done for this city as a whole if they acted on what was best for ALL the citizens as opposed to the few prominent landowners that seem to put the fear of God in them.

Judy, that's great that you all stuck together and were able to accomplish what you wanted...there is power in numbers, for sure...plus you had an attorney !

But, wouldn't it been great if the City Council could have made that decision to protect the original zoning on their own without being forced to ???

That example should motivate others to stick together and speak out on issues that impact them or that they feel stongly about in the community.

DeeAnna

As for Public opinion not mattering to the council, I can only relate to one situation where a property owner (who owns lots of land in portland) wanted to get rezoning on a parcel of land in my area where they could build 4 houses per acre instead of 1 per acre as the property was zoned and the surrounding area is. The majority of us neighbors pulled together and fought this tooth and nail thru the council we even pitched together and hired an attorney for representation. We packed City Hall and I mean PACKED it there wasn't any room to move in the halls or on the front steps, we did this 2 or 3 times, each time the land owner would pull his request seeing all of us there and would try again the next month until he got tired of pulling and let the decision go before the council, it was then that the city denied his rezoning noting they felt it was for the best interest of the citizens because of the out pouring we showed at the meetings that they had never witnessed before. So... will they listen? YES, but you best not be a lone soldier.

why dont they have a referendom on this and let the people decide?because they are scared it wont pass like the stupid civic center didnt.we cant have an adult drink in a restaurant that would raise plenty of revenue like the rest of the free world, but they still want to spend like a big civilized city. you cant have it both ways. we dont need to move city hall, it needs to stay where it is and they need to make do with what they have. face it this town is ass-backwards.
make no mistake though, this is going to pass, they already have the place picked out and its already been decided no matter what we the citizens think. hmmmmm, i wonder what constuction co. will get the contract to build the new waste of taxpayer money???

why dont they have a referendom on this and let the people decide?because they are scared it wont pass like the stupid civic center didnt.we cant have an adult drink in a restaurant that would raise plenty of revenue like the rest of the free world, but they still want to spend like a big civilized city. you cant have it both ways. we dont need to move city hall, it needs to stay where it is and they need to make do with what they have. face it this town is ass-backwards.
make no mistake though, this is going to pass, they already have the place picked out and its already been decided no matter what we the citizens think. hmmmmm, i wonder what constuction co. will get the contract to build the new waste of money???

Ace - another thing that was said by Mrs. Johnson at that hearing was that even the new building they are going to move into would not provide enough storage space..that she would need to use "outside storage".....because the state now requires that records be kept for 20 years.

I wonder what the health dept. would say about the moldy building being used for court and other things. Mold in schools is a big deal....it should be for any public building.

I am waiting to see how many people actually will show up for meetings over there in the new building....I don't think it will make any difference. Except for special occasions when they have a Scout troop or something special will they ever need all that room in the Council Chambers. The same 15 people will show up for them...LOL LOL

Well, make that 14 .... I think I will just watch it on tv. I don't think public opinion matters very much to the Council. I think it's just a requirement that hearings are held on certain issues. Am I too cynical ??

Well, I am happy the police dept. will now be located in my neighborhood....maybe the thieves who stole my son's bike will think twice before hitting here again....LOL LOL

hrl,
The use of the Old Farmers Bank Building for court is probably legal within the rules the ADA because the court only uses the main floor. If the City were to renovate it for use of offices, they would most likely need to put in an elevator for any employee, or citizen to get to the down stairs offices. Not a lawyer, just my 2¢.
Plus if you store files in a moldy (funny smelling) flood prone place, those files will be destroyed.

If the old bank building is "not up to codes for ADA etc." then how can the City use it for court? (Yep.....been there!!!)

the old farmer bank bldg 124 main has over 5500sq ft not counting over 2700sq ft finished and 2700sq ft unfinished in basment. according to church directory it is occupied! guess churches dont need ada approved building to worship in and this is ok for city to do? perhaps it does smell..... fishy

ABCD,

In the hearing, it was mentioned by Mrs. Johnson that the old Farmer's Bank Building "smelled funny"....and then someone said it has a mold problem...when someone suggested that maybe it could be used for storage of old files, etc. she said...no, because it just smelled funny.
I'm wondering why they let that problem continue..why didn't they get that fixed,isn't that a health issue to whoever does use the building ?? I would think some state codes would apply to that or health dept., etc.

What is ADA ??

Are you talking about the Americans with Disability Act regulations ?

You said the mayor is out of town learning how to recruit retail..meaning he is taking a course or attending a seminar ?? Just curious.

The mayor is out of towm trying to learn how to get more retail. I am sure he will email you, he is good at that.The other two buildings mentioned here were not up to codes for ADA etc.

Debra....I'm sure you're right.
I think a lot of other people think so, too !

Ace, the city owns the Farmer's Bank Building.
They held the LBTD debates in there....there was room for a lot of people there....of course, only the usual handful showed up, but I just have to wonder why, when they have public hearings, that they don't use that building. It would be a solution, in the meantime, until they can have a better building.

I think the city hall move is a done deal. I think it was a done deal before the mayor put on his little show, for the citizens, at the meeting wanting to get our input.
I didn't get to the meeting but I emailed the mayor as others on here said they did. Did not receive a response. I really don't think the mayor cares what we think.

So if what I am hearing is correct, the ONE MILLION dollars for this move is going to be financed for 10 YEARS. And city hall will be nestled within the outskirts of the Industrial park. Sorry I am against this idea, I really think the City owes it to the tax paying citizens of this town to give them a better location for their City's home! This is nothing more than a costly band aid. Step back and PLAN for a future location, one that everyone can be proud of.

In the mean time, is the Kerley building occupied? Why not use that for some of the other departments, how big is it? Can it house the Police Dept? What about the old Dr's building just across the tracks, would this of been big enough, if so why didn't the city buy that when it was available? I don't know the answers, but I don't think the proposed location is appropriate just my opinion.

DeeAnna,
About attending the meeting...the room they held it in only holds about 20 people...
That is one of the benefits of the LawnLite Building. A large showroom to be used for the council chambers, public hearings, and other uses. The current chambers could fit in the new one 3 times!!!
On the subject of the purchase/move..is it a perfect fix? No. Will the new building sustain this town forever? No. Is it a Band-Aid™. Yes. But the bleeding needs to be stopped before it becomes a full blown hemorrhage.

DeeAnna, If I want to know what is happening in this town I read the Progressive. Alot of folks do not like the paper because it will report on the dirty deeds and little known secrets of this town but I see it as staying informed.

The Progressive does report the news before the Leader just like the Gallatin News Examiner does. I don't know why the Leader is always behind. The Leader is usually a waste of 50 cents.

I picked up copies of both papers this evening and was surprised to see that only the Portland Progressive covered the story of the hearing on the proposed move of the City Hall.
There wasn't one word in the Leader about it.
I thought that was "interesting".
Does anyone else see that as odd as I do ?

If the city is set on spending 1 million dollars then I suggest they buy some land and build a new City Hall.

I didn't make it to the meeting. Were there any people speaking up against the move?

I will be emailing the mayor and putting in my 2 cents worth.

How do you suppose they are going to be able to pay for "financing" a building? If they can't build a reserve without raising taxes, how will they come up with the money to repay a loan? (with interest to boot)

No matter what the City does, the taxpayers have to pay for it and I think the people who are footing the bill have every right in the world to speak up if they feel that monies could be used more efficiently and to demand truthful disclosure of how ANY project will be funded.

As far as "management by crisis", there is only one problem with that comment . . . this situation hardly rises to the level of a "crisis" and absent a bonafide "crisis", there is not any reason that the City cannot step back, take a deep breath and regroup before obligating the hardworking taxpayers of this fair city of ours to a $1,000,000.00 debt that will only serve to put a band-aid on a broken leg.

I have to say I like the idea of purchasing land on HWY 52 W. The city should build a state of the art municipal building that can be used for the next 20-30 years. However, the recording studio should be saved. It is historic, and let us not forget how we tore the train depot down. Portland is not known for its historical preservation.

I hardly think it's fair to criticize our elected officials and say it is "management by crisis" in this instance. Think about what you are suggesting. The city has managed to offer decent services without recent tax increases and to my knowledge hasn't wasted alot of money nor have they built tremendous reserves. To plan for future growth and build reserves as you suggest they should have, the alternative would have been to raise property taxes. Would we as taxpayers have been happy to pay higher taxes in order for the city to build reserves? Probably not! It's hard enough to get citizens to buy into a tax increase to fund current priorities, much less to fund a reserve. In my opinion they haven't done a bad job of managing city finances.

Another comment from me about that meeting.

I thought Mike Callis had a great idea. He said that they should give consideration to buying some land now on 52W while it is still affordable.

Securing land and having it for when the time comes to build a new City Hall seems to be wise.

I wonder why they haven't been planning on Portland to outgrow their spaces years ago.....and why they didn't plan for it.

Guess it's management by crisis, as they say.

I was at that public hearing and saw the video.
The mayor said that they only showed 15 minutes of it......that it was actually an hour long video...and that it MAY be shown at some point on Channel 3, but he wasn't definite about that.

When I hear "in the budget" I assume it means the money is already there and is waiting to be spent on an item...but that's not the case apparently, because they are talking about this million dollars taking ten years to pay off !

About attending the meeting...the room they held it in only holds about 20 people...so if you came you wouldn't be able to sit down anyway or even be in the room ! If I were mayor and I wanted to have a public hearing...I would hold the meeting in a place where there was room for as many to come as wanted to....could they not use the old Farmer's Bank building for meetings..at least there is seating there for more people. In the meeting, they did say that the city owned the old Farmer's bank building.

By the way, there are people out there who weren't able to attend the Public Meeting about the proposed City Hall. Is there any way for them to see the video that everyone keeps talking about?

hrl;
I agree. When I saw the video, I was suprised that Mrs. Johnson was talking about financing the purchase and move to the Lawnlight building. Like you, I thought that an item "in the budget" meant that the monies are already there. It would make sense to budget money to a fund for future building needs. Is the city doing this?

Are there any aldermen out there who would like to clarify this misunderstanding?

I think I misunderstood. I was in favor of this because city officials have said numerous times the $1 million was "in the budget". Does that simply mean they are borrowing $1 million to do this? The budget must be balanced so if the funds are not in the bank all they are saying is that they plan to borrow $1 million to do this and pay it back over 10 years. Wouldn't it be clearer if it were stated that way? To me, "it's in the budget" implies that they have the funds to pay for it out of current revenues or savings and the money isn't borrowed. I think it's a little misleading to just say "it's in the budget". That causes some to say it's okay because we can afford it when that really isn't the case. Will taxes go up for the next 10 years to pay for this?

Regarding the comment as to whether there can be a story added to the current City Hall to accommodate more space, that option has been explored. The only part that could support a second story is the newest part which was built in the early 90's, I think. This would not provide enough new room, and parking would still be a major problem, as well as a decent Council chambers that the new building provides.

I, for lack of a better term, hosted the video tape that has been mentioned. But I am not so sure that the project being proposed is the best in the long-term. It would defintely meet the current needs of the City, but, as Portland continually grows exceeding most expectations, I fear we are going to commit to a 10-year note and 5-7 years down the line, wind up having to either expand further, or start to build a new City Hall.

I would like to see if there would be some way to go ahead, bite the bullet, build a state-of-the-art multi-use Municipal Building on Hwy. 52-W that would fix the growth problem for decades. The problem there is, that would be a 20-30 year, multi-million dollar commitment compared to the ten-year, one million dollar project being proposed.

This is one of those problems where each side of the debate has very valid points to hang their arguments on.

DA - you summed it up perfectly in your last paragraph. It is patchwork and short-sighted, but....it will serve their needs for the next several years or as long as it takes to pay off that loan. ( I believe they said 10 years ).

I don't think the police are going to like being stuck behind the railroad tracks, though.

If you would like to be a blog author on www.PortlandTN.net, please contact Charlie Myers at cfmyers@mindspring.com. The more authors we have, the better the Portland blog will work!

copied from blog access site

Actually Mack, if you sign up to be an author you can start the new thread yourself.

Not sure how it works though.

Question

Has there been an engineering study done on the current city hall location for the possibility of adding a second floor to that building? If it's possible would this be a better option?

Ok then, I propose a new blog by the administrator considering the topic of a new football stadium behind the new high school.

Goodness!
Here it is, only July, and the topic of this blog has been turned from a new City Hall to -- guess what? -- Football! I agree, the current stadium is a wreck, and the team didn't win last year, but is it possible to stick to the topic -- the proposed move of City offices?

Everyone seems to agree that the biggest drawback to the new building is its location. I'm not crazy about it, either, but it's what we've been offered. Are there other locations available that would suit the purposes of City Government? Yes, the recording studio is a few hundred feet closer to downtown, but I really don't think it has as much room as is needed. But it does have pretty white pillars out front.

Traffic-wise, I think the studio would present a lot more problems than the "Lawnlight" building; it, like El Moro, is located at the point where 109 goes from 4-lane to 2-lane. How many times have you almost been hit there trying to get into the center lane? Turning left onto 109 at that particular point, to come back into town, is no picnic, either.

Yes, I know; there are plans to widen 109. When we bought our house in Portland 8 years ago, we were told that they were planning to widen 109, plus put 840 up this way. Need I say more? No matter where City Hall is, there need to be more traffic lights on 109 North.

Michelle, I agree that the whole idea of purchasing the Lawnlight building has come up and been decided very quickly. Patchwork is a good term. But maybe it's simply taking advantage of a situation where a businessman has decided to sell an unused building, and the City sees it as a chance to eliminate the overcrowding at the Public Safety building.

Michelle,

First of all, I believe I was communicating with Mack?

Secondly, I do have children involved in Football and Cheerleading and it was not mean spirited given that the team on the field last year was one of the least successful teams Portland has had in Many years, That is fact, you just have to look it up to find that out. There is never anything mean spirited about fact. It was not necessarily the fault of the players that the team did not pan out to what was expected, it was poor coaching and a poor game plan. They ran the same 2 plays all year over and over. They spent more time running plays towards the sidelines than they did towards the goal line. Last I checked the goal line is at the end of the field not on the sideline.

Anyway, this is not to take away from the kids as they work hard out in the blazing sun day after day to prepare for the season and each weeks game.....just doesn't look like the head coach spends nearly enough time preparing his game plan for each week with the same 2 plays being run over and over at least based on what I saw last year.

Hopefully the coach learned some lessons last year and can come up with something a little more creative this year. It would certainly make it more enjoyable for the kids he has playing for him and for the people in the stands.

A new stadium appropriatly placed near the new high school would certainly be a nice step in a new direction.

One more thing, since Chief West is the Chief of two different departments, in which building will he have an office? Or will it be necessary for him to have two offices?

JW- I do not have a child on the football team, nor am I friends with the coach, but your final comment in your post seemed rather mean-spirited. Was that your intention?

Insofar as the what the City is planning, and I use the term planning very loosely, it is par for the course. This move is patchwork and doesn't present a clear vision for the future.

I know that the working conditions are less than ideal for the detectives, but I also know that there is a HUGE room right outside of their office that could be remodeled. Was that room in the previously mentioned video?

Mack,

I agree completely. I have never understood why they did not build a new football stadium at the new high school....makes no sense. The old one is outdated, parking is a nightmare and it is just generally not a pleasant experience. Particularly with the team that was on the field last year.

Here's another topic...why doesn't Portland build a better football stadium behind the NEW high school instead of forcing us to go to the old run down current location, which doesn't have any parking?

Well, I saw the video at the meeting, and see the need for more space for the City Hall and the police, and the proposed building will satisfy those needs,apparently. I would like to see our town's City Hall in a better location, instead of in an industrial park...but guess that's a fitting location since Portland's main focus is industry and warehouses. I think some other options should be given serious consideration, since we are going to have to live with this decision for at least the next 10 years.
I'm not sure the police dept. being behind the railroad tracks is a good location, either.

I wish the City Hall could be in town, in a more visible location, instead of in an industrial park.....but since, Portland is made up of mostly industries and warehouses, guess it's most fitting. It wouldn't be my choice of location, though. I'm sure the building will provide the space they need, but....seems more thought should be given to a better location,or other options given serious consideration, since that's where it will be for the next 10 years or so.

As for the recording studio, the location is great but the building is not large enough.

DA -- yes, that's the one........what do you think ? Make a pretty nice City Hall, wouldn't it ?

Please forgive me, I'm "not from around here." What building was Ronnie McDowell's recording studio? Is it the white-pillared building next to the Depot replica where El Moro Restaurant is now located?

Does anyone think that Ronnie McDowells old recording studio would be a good place for city hall? Its on one of the major roads in town. Plus if it's fixed up it can be pretty nice. Either way I support a move of the police department because they do need more space. However, I think the city should find a primary location for the city hall and it should be nice.

Go for it!! If Portland continues to grow, there will need to be adequate space for the government offices. Some people are actually sitting all day at a table in a corner.

More importantly, the Police Department is feeling the crunch of trying to do business out of an old Dairy Queen. Their staff has increased threefold in the past 20 years, and with all the new technology, they have simply run out of space.

I think it will be a good move for everyone. Some people may be upset that the new building isn't "downtown", but it will be easy to get to, and will be in an area that is growing. It may not be the most ideal situation, but it is available and we can definitely improve the working conditions for both the City Gov't and the Police Dept.