The Truth About The Rising Costs To East Ridge On The Fire Hall Property - And Response (3)

  • Friday, May 29, 2015
Re:East Ridge Has To Pay Unexpected $428,000 On Bass Pro Shop Deal
 
Here is the truth about this article. 
 
One section of the article says: "Unknown to anybody on the council today, the agreement limited use of the land to a fire hall."  
 
In a letter dated Dec. 15, 2010, Mayor Lambert asked TDOT officials to lift the restrictions and allow the city to sell the land for development. TDOT officials denied the request. The letter was copied to Vice Mayor Larry Sewell, Councilmen Denny Manning and Jim Bethune, Interim City Manager Eddie Phillips, then City Attorney John Anderson and TDOT official Steve Allen.
 
These individuals knew about this four and a half years ago and now they are trying to squirm out of it with the expense having to be borne by the taxpayers of East Ridge.  These people should have to pay the not $428,000, but now $603,000.
 
These individuals should not only have to pay the cost, but should be investigated.
 
Glen Pope, Angry Taxpayer

East Ridge

* * *

In 1999, I served on the East Ridge City Council. Chances are, I either made the motion or seconded it for approval of the land agreement between the city of East Ridge and the state of Tennessee for the south end fire hall property.

Building a second fire hall served several purposes. It provided quicker response time to the south end of East Ridge and increased our Fire Department’s ISO rating that has in turn led to lower insurance premiums for residential and commercial structures.

I quote from Mitigation Online “ISO helps the communities evaluate their public fire-protection services. The program provides an objective, countrywide standard that helps fire departments in planning and budgeting for facilities, equipment, and training. And by securing lower fire insurance premiums for communities with better public protection, the PPC program provides incentives and rewards for communities that choose to improve their firefighting services.”

For months we have all relished in the idea of Bass Pro coming to East Ridge not to mention, the possibilities of what satellite businesses will follow. East Ridge, Tennessee is on the verge of something great - not only for East Ridge, but for Hamilton County and Tennessee.

The tax dollars are only the icing on the cake. The economic impact will be huge for new and existing businesses. This breaks down to more money for more fire and police services, better roads, more community projects and jobs. The impact is endless.

I have to commend the mayor and council both, present and past, for their insight and initiatives in getting East Ridge in on the Border Regions Act. Without this none of these great things would be possible. Nobody ever imagined after building a new fire hall that the use of this land would change.

Nobody likes spending money, but with greatness comes cost. I may not be exact in my figures, but let's look at it this way. The state sold the majority of the property, I believe 25 acres, to East Ridge for the purpose of developing for $131,000.00. Now, the city is having to pay the state an additional $603,000 for the fire hall property. We paid $50,000 in 1999. That’s a total give or take of $784,000. Roughly, that works out to an average of $25,290.32 per acre for prime commercial real estate located at the intersection of two main interstate highways. I’m no real estate broker, but folks I doubt you can buy a residential acre in East Ridge for $25,290.32.

I cast no blame on the mayor or council for this additional cost. I look at monies spent as a wise investment for the community. And, there will be more cost to come. As with any development there will be infrastructure cost such as roads, sewers, utilities, etc.

East Ridge is finally in sight of the 21st century. And, relatively speaking at a minimal cost of development. I think it’s time to embrace the vision and support all the efforts being made by the city leaders and developers.

Businesses just like people react on negativity and let's face it, would you want to locate to a city where there is little or no governmental and community support?

John Tilley, Past East Ridge Council Member

* * *

Mr. Tilley,

Your correct we are a blessed city to have the Border Region Act.  I agree with you that at the end of the day the cost is definitely worth it.  This is not a “deal breaker” by any means.  I would say that overwhelmingly the taxpayers of East Ridge support this development.  That doesn’t mean that “for the sake of business” we need to keep our head in the sand and cannot speak out when we see things happening in our government that need to be changed.

I don’t know though if this process would have been started earlier if the cost associated with this deal wouldn’t have been lower.  I wonder how 25 acres in 2012 are worth $131,000 but today six acres are worth $849,000?  I completely believe that part of the reason the value of the property spiked is because we started the process of lifting the restriction after development and rezoning of the land took place and not before.  It appeared if upon discussion by the council on May 14 that some of them felt the same way.

I would say that the 1999 council that you were a part of made the proper decision at the time.  You had a chance to obtain property for the fire hall at a 70 percent reduction by simply accepting a restriction that says you have to use the land for the reason you purchased it. 

The 1999 council had no plans to use that land for anything else, and it’s the perfect location for a fire hall.  So you receive a 70 percent discount and accept the deed restriction.

The problem comes a few different ways.  First, the mayor or the attorney on the mayor's behalf sent a letter to TDOT Commissioner Nicely in response to a previous in person meeting that lay out some changes we want to make to our land use application for the 25 acres.  We also request in the same letter to lift the restrictions on the fire hall property.  This letter is CC’ed via e-mail to council members Denny Manning, Jim Bethune, Vice Mayor Larry Sewell, the interim city manager at the time and City Attorney John Anderson.

So assuming any of these people read their e-mail they should have known about the restriction prior to its revelation to the public at the last meeting.  Also, according to the Mayor, this letter was never witnessed by him and was sent and signed by City Attorney Anderson.   City Attorney Anderson was also our attorney of record when the city split and sold four acres of the fire hall to the developers in clear violation of the deed restriction.

This failure by our city attorney to property clear up the restriction that was clearly written on the deed led to the subsequent delay in the application to have the restrictions removed.  This delay I believe is what led to a much higher amount by a large margin in the appraisal for that property.  Should this not upset taxpayers that their attorney acted without their best interest?  Even if we are reimbursed by the state, the money the state gives the city is still the taxpayers' money.

Let’s assume people made mistakes and forgot about the 2010 e-mail and none of them read the 2012 deed.  It still should have been publicly brought before the council and informed to the taxpayers upon the mayor being notified in July of 2014.  There was no valid reason to not inform the taxpayers of this problem.  The taxpayers have a right to know, and the council for sure had the right to be informed of this issue.  There were many discussions and votes about this property between July 16, 2014 when the mayor was informed and May 14, 2015 when the council was finally informed.  How many of those votes or discussions may have been different if the city knew it had an impending bill to pay to the state to clear this issue.

The taxpayers have the right to an accountable and transparent local government.  They have every right to question the city when they see things happen that appear to be deceptive in nature.  They also have the right to do all of this without being harassed or be told “stop, this is bad for business.”  Remember this issue would have been gone a long time ago if the information would have been divulged to the public when it was first brought to the mayor’s attention.

Matthew DeGlopper, Disappointed Taxpayer

* * *

Again, the name John Anderson pops up. Will East Ridge ever rid itself of that lawyer?
 
Seems he was the a lawyer when the city of East Ridge negotiated a deal with the state of Tennessee for the land now designated for Bass Pro Shop. It is a deal that now has the city writing a check to the state.
 
Somehow I feel the lawyer involved has some responsibility in as much as he took a large salary for his work or the lack of it. Again, the lawyer got the gold mine and East Ridge got the shaft.
Chuck Mehan
East Ridge

Opinion
Democratic View On Top State Senate Issues - March 18, 2024
  • 3/18/2024

Campbell bill seeks to save lives by studying suicide trends in Tennessee 3 p.m. Senate Regular Calendar — SB 1787 , by Sen. Heidi Campbell, would require state health officials to produce ... more

The Odor Of Mendacity - And Response (2)
  • 3/16/2024

The Fulton County judge, Scott McAfee, overseeing the Fani Willis prosecution of Donald Trump and eighteen other defendants has spoken. In response to a motion by defendants to remove Willis ... more

Capitol Report From State Rep. Greg Vital For March 15
  • 3/15/2024

General Assembly confirms new Tennessee State Supreme Justice Members of the General Assembly confirmed the appointment of Mary L. Wagner to the Tennessee Supreme Court in a joint session ... more