As I had previously advised everyone, I have a scheduled appointment on Monday, August 24, 2015 that conflicts with the “roundtable discussion” set by County Commissioner Gannon. I am scheduled to be at the Vanderbilt Multiple Sclerosis Clinic in Nashville during the afternoon for a medical procedure that has been scheduled for at least two months. I had originally hoped to try and return by the start time of the discussion, but now it appears that will not be possible. Just as a majority of the City Council was not able to attend the recent Special Session to hear and discuss the economic findings of Mr. Gross because of previously scheduled events and engagements, the same is true for me with this specially set meeting.
I do not want anyone to think that my not being able to attend means that I am not amenable to discussing and/or attempting to work with anyone on issues surrounding this topic. It is my hope that as facts continue to come to light, all parties will communicate about options and possible solutions for the one thing that we can all agree on—the need to revitalize and redevelop our downtown. The following is a brief, but not all inclusive, statement of some of the issues I have with the current legislative proposals pending before the City Council and County Commission.
The first thing that I want to stress is that I am not against “a park”, “a plaza” or whatever it is that is being considered. As I have made clear from the beginning, whenever taxpayer dollars are involved, my decisions and opinions are weighed differently than if someone else, such as a private party, is paying for an improvement or project.
First, if the City is going to buy property, it must be for a municipal public purpose. The City cannot buy property, just because it is available, and hold it hoping to sell it to another buyer later for economic development purposes. As an example, the City purchased a number of acres of property behind O’Charleys on Riverside Drive before I became Mayor. Because the City was only able to define a public purpose for that portion that would be used for a public river walkway, the remaining property had to be purchased with taxable bonds, a move that cost the city taxpayers over a quarter of a million dollars, and the property site still sits vacant.
Second, if the County wants to purchase property and develop a public amenity in partnership with the City, many issues come to light that must be addressed. Many years ago, the City and County decided not to pursue any more jointly funded agencies and corresponding property ownership. The decision was made to separate and divide any existing agencies/entities. All were separated and City property taxes were reduced to account for the division. For example, the Museum (City), the Library (County), the Senior Citizen’s Center (City), Animal Control (County) and the other agencies/entities located within
Montgomery County are now owned and funded by one governmental entity or the other. The only exceptions are the Regional Planning Commission and the Airport Authority which are formed pursuant to State Law.
Third, it must be remembered that over 70% of County property taxpayers are City residents so any arrangement that purports to split the cost equally between the City and County means that City taxpayers are paying twice for the same thing. As the elected Mayor of the City, I have to question this arrangement for the benefit of the City taxpayers.
The overriding question that I believe needs to be answered is what is the purpose for the potential project. Is it is to provide an amenity for the citizens for quality of life without regard to the potential return on investment to the government like a typical park i.e. Liberty Park, Heritage Park etc… or is to provide a return on investment to spur economic development and revitalization of downtown. Because of the lack of parking options, lack of details regarding costs, lack of details concerning maintenance/operating expenses and the ROI findings from Randall Gross, the economic expert, which indicates private investment is key, I believe there are serious questions to be addressed for the benefit of the taxpayers and citizens.
Just so everyone is aware, we do have the option to treat the downtown area like the industrial park. We can loan funds to the IDB for economic development purposes to purchase the property for private development so the taxpayers are not the ones holding the bag. (See T.C.A. Sec. 6-54-118). The real issue, at least in my opinion, is none of these questions and others have been considered yet. My obligation is always to the citizens and I believe, and have stated on multiple occasions, that so many basic questions remain about the “civic park” or “civic square” that it is hard to formulate answers and plan how best to move forward.
I stand ready, willing and able to work together to address all of these questions and others as we attempt to move forward to achieve our ultimate objective while always making sure that the taxpayers and citizens are our first priority.