City Council Meeting and Common Core for 8/22/13

On Thursday night we had a City Council meeting. Both Shane McFarland and Madelyn Scales-Harris were absent.

The agenda was rather full with 12 items for new business and of those 6 were public hearings for re-zoning and annexations. There were also presentations and requests from the IT Dept, City Schools and an award for our City Police.

First, I'll start with the award. It was given to the Murfreesboro City Police Dept. in recognition of their newly earned accreditation from the Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police. To qualify, the Department had to achieve 160 individual standards and our police department was only the 22nd department to receive this award since it was created. And there are some 600 law enforcement agencies in Tennessee which report directly to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation so this was a very special award.

After the award, the first 3 agenda items were uneventful and all passed unanimously. The next three dealt with properties off of Veterans Parkway and the applicants sought to have the properties re-zoned and annexed to the City upon re-zoning. The main concerns were that these properties were barely adjacent to current city limits and that Tennessee law forbids "islands" of county within a city. Application 2013-506 (27 acres) was able to circumvent this via a 30-foot wide strip of land and some speakers thought that while this did not violate the letter of the law, it did violate the spirit of it.

Further concerns were school overcrowding since these properties will most likely be developed as apartment complexes or other high-density regions and that there may be no real need for additional high-density areas given the vast number of similar applications the City has approved. I ended up saying a few words to the Council about the final re-zoning application (2013-418).

I first asked about the question I know many of you have been wondering about: the annexation "ban."  It was explained that if the property owners request the annexation then a city is allowed to annex the properties. So now we can finally move past that point and I appreciate City Attorney McGannon for taking the time to clear up the misunderstandings. Councilman Gilley thanked me for my question while we were in the elevator after the meeting and said he realized there had been a lot of confusion over the subject.

I next brought up the fact that these properties actually fall within the 25-year Greenway Master Plan and I asked if any of the applicants realized that a portion of their properties were actually at risk of being taken by the City via eminent domain. I didn't expect any replies to that and I received none. All of the re-zonings and annexations were approved unanimously.

Next came agenda item #13, recommendations from the Chief of Police and Chief of Fire & Rescue requesting the reallocation of unspent funds. The amount in question was $490,000 which came from cost savings on various expected purchases (and so no new money was being spent). They requested the money be reallocated to help build a training facility. It was approved by the Council.

Councilman Smotherman asked Chief Chrisman about the newly acquired MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle. Chief Chrisman explained the vehicle's capability and why he felt the Department needed one. To be honest, I fully accept his explanation in light of the fact that while a MRAP looks scary it isn't a tank nor does it have the capabilities so many have ascribed it. From his explanation, prior to this acquisition our police department did not have the capacity to safely respond to events with high-powered long-range weapons and the MRAP is rated to withstand 50 caliber fire. Further, it was free and several police officers and members of the City's Fleet Service Dept. are veterans and have actually worked on MRAPs and are familiar with the maintenance of them.

Item #14 dealt with the City's phone system and a proposal from the IT Dept. director. Apparently, the phone system currently used is over 20 years old. The Director recommended a total replacement and upgrade of the phone system which would cost $313,000. The costs were already in the budget and the new system is expected to actually save the City $57,000 a year - paying itself off after 5 1/2 years. The new system is estimated to last 10 years. This was also approved.

Finally, Item #15. This dealt with mandatory technology upgrades imposed by Common Core. Dr. Linda Gilbert, Director of Schools gave the presentation and answered most of the questions although there were other members of the School Board and IT  Dept. there to help as well. Research into these changes began 2 1/2 years ago and will need to be fully implemented by Feb. 2014 if the schools are to meet Common Core testing deadlines.

To meet the requirements, city schools will need to enhance their IT infrastructure to handle the new technological loads and will require $5.2 million in upfront costs for the infrastructure, computers and other equipment. The goal for pre-K is to have 5 iPads per class, grades 1 and 2 will have 1 iPad per two students, and grades 3-6 will have 1 laptop per two students. In all, some 5,000 devices will need to be purchased for the students and staff. The devices are expected to last 5 years so they will need to be replaced regularly as well as continual updates, training, repairs etc which breaks down to an average cost of $800,000 each year - every year. In the words of one of the speakers (I didn't catch his name) "extraordinary new dollars may be required" for the program.

The Board was not prepared to recommend a specific way to fund these mandates and sought an extra two weeks to finalize their plans. However, based on the discussions it is very clear that at least part of the money will come from borrowed funds next year. Other monies may comes from the general fund, reserve fund, savings on debt payments, etc.

While no one disagrees that today's students need to learn computer skills and need to be fully prepared to be able to operate with ease in a highly technological world, the problem is we're having to spend millions at once on something (Common Core) that has a very short operational history and we don't know if it's going to be successful. As Councilman Smotherman pointed out, every few years our schools are forced into some new and improved education program - No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top etc and yet we receive no assistance in actually implementing the changes. Tennessee agreed to Common Core and received monies, but local school districts and cities are not allowed any access to those funds.

As was explained, Murfreesboro schools are in one of the best positions (of all the school districts in the state) to absorb these costs, but many smaller counties and towns are not. Some municipalities were forced to completely deplete their reserves just to buy the required equipment. The City approved the agenda item expressing their intent to fund the mandate. Actual approval on how to fund it and the finalized costs will be done in Sept.

The struggle to pay the $5.2 million plus the added yearly $800,000 brings me to my main "hot button" topic - city recreation. The City's Recreation Dept budget has grown at faster pace than pretty much any other department and at a faster pace than the general revenues the City receives. Since the City has no choice but to implement Common Core, and since most people tend to agree that the technology itself is needed, why not lay off the golf courses and tennis courts and pay for our children? Just a thought.

-- Jacob Bogle
Facebook page

An Evening with Congressman Scott DesJarlais

On Aug 13, 2013 the Rutherford County Tea Party and 9/12 chapter hosted their monthly "Conservative Conversation and Cocktails" (aka 3C's) meeting. Their featured speaker was US Congressman Scott DesJarlais from Tennessee's 4th Congressional District.

Around 200 people showed up to hear the Congressman speak and to participate in a Q & A session with him. Of the 200 attendees, roughly half came out to press the Congressman on his views on immigration. Although the room was deeply divided on this issue, people were very courteous to each other and the Congressman was able to answer a number of questions on a wide range of topics.

Below is the list of questions and his answers. For full disclosure, these are not direct quotes, but are based on the notes I took during the Q&A session. I've done my best to accurately relay the spirit of the questions and his answers, but there may be differences between this and any full transcript/recording of the night.

Q 1. Why can't we de-fund Obamacare?
     A 1. I would like to de-fund Obamacare, however there are a series of obstacles and due to the language and complexity of the law it isn't as simple as just "de-funding" it. On top of that, there is the Senate. Unless it can pass the Senate, constant votes in the House to de-fund it aren't going to work.

Q 2. If Obamacare was such a great thing, why are the unions and congress trying to opt out of it? 
    A 2. Simple, Obamacare isn't a great thing. I'm actually in favor of ending all "special" congressional benefits and lifetime pensions.

Q 3. Where do you stand on the internet sales tax, aka the Marketplace Fairness Act?
    A 4. I would vote against it, I think it's a bad idea.

Q 5. Where does Obama get the authority to delay any law which was passed by Congress?
    A 5. The short answer is, he has no authority to do so. The President has run roughshod over the Constitution with endless executive orders but frankly, many in Congress support that kind of action which is how he gets away with it.

Q 6. Why is that non-citizens, who want to contribute and join the military, aren't allowed to simply because they don't have documentation? What about all of the families that want to stay together?
   A 6. America was founded by immigrants and we have a rich history of positive immigration. I applaud anyone who wants to come here and serve in our military and contribute to our country. However, they need to follow the rule of law. Millions of people came here, stood in line and earned their citizenship; that kind of behavior should be rewarded. In the end, we need to enforce the laws already on the books.

Q 7. Why aren't veterans allowed to use medical marijuana for disabilities the government admits that we have? 
   A 7. First, let's all thank this man for his service. Marijuana has been available for cancer patients for years. Recently we've looked at the effects the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have had on our troops. The suicide rate is horrible. As a doctor, all I can go on are the studies and I don't have all of the information required to say it should be legal for other things. You can always move to another state, like Colorado, where it's legal.

Q 8. There is a lot of talk about ending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this could put an end to the 30-year mortgage and hurt a lot of people. What are your thoughts on this?
    A 8. The housing crisis was caused by too much government interference in the marketplace. Fannie and Freddie were too big and their responsibilities should be left up to the private sector. Anytime we can get government out of the way and turn things over to the private sector, I think that's a good thing.

Q 9. What would you do to help "Dreamer's", like myself, to stay in America and continue earning our education? (the lady was referring to the DREAM Act)
   A 9. Again, I think it's wonderful that people want to come here and get an education. However, you should not be allowed to jump in front of the line and people need to follow the laws we have.

Q 10. Why do you deny climate change? 97% of scientists agree that it is real and that carbon emissions are harming the planet. 
    A 10. There are just as many studies showing different results. What specifically would you like to see us do?
    Q - I would like to see us cut carbon emissions and produce more wind and solar power.
        A - I think renewable sources of energy are great, however we do not need to have tax payer subsides for them. And if you're suggesting Cap & Trade, I'm completely opposed to that.

Q 11. Where do you stand on auditing the Federal Reserve?
    A 11. I think the system we have now punishes success. We need to get the government out of the way and allow businesses and individuals to thrive.

Q 12. Are you open to immigration reform?
    A 12. We need to avoid falling into the same trap as with Obamacare. We don't need 2,000 page bills that no one can understand or knows what's in it. First, we need to secure the border and enforce the laws we already have. Then, if we need to make small, specific reforms to make the process simpler, then we can deal with that. But first, we need to follow the laws we already have.

Q 13. Most Americans support universal background checks. The gun-show loophole is a dangerous thing and needs to be addressed. Where do you stand on this?
    A 13. I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment. It is easy to have a knee-jerk reaction after a tragedy like Sandy Hook. Places like Chicago and DC have some of the strictest gun laws in the country and they also have the highest number of crimes. More laws aren't going to prevent someone intent on doing harm from going out and hurting people. We need to allow individuals and families to be armed so that they can defend themselves from those who would do them harm.

Q 14. What can kids do to help keep their daddies (who aren't documented) with them? (this was asked by a young girl)
    A 14. First, I want to thank everyone who's come up here to ask questions. It's a big crowed and I know it can be intimidating. But really, my answer is the same. Everyone needs to follow the laws already on the books.

Q 15. Where do you stand on Common Core and what can Congress do about it?
    A 15. This is largely a state issue and no state is being forced to approve Common Core. The government always follows the "one size fits all" policy and if you look at the $1 trillion the Dept. of Education has spent and you look at the test scores over the years, the Dept. of Education has failed. We don't need to be mandating anything to the states on a federal level when it comes to education.

Q 16. Could you give us an update on Benghazi?
    A 16. We are continuing all of the investigations. The administration has been trying to mislead the public and hide the truth so we have had difficulties getting all of the answers we've sought. This, the IRS scandal, and the other "phony scandals" are important and we're going to keep investigating.

The Q&A session lasted about an hour and I feel that Congressman DesJarlais did a fine job answering most of the questions. He didn't directly answer the Audit the Fed question and I really wish he had.

Afterward, the "protesters" left and everyone else broke off into private conversation. If you haven't attended a 3C's I strongly urge you to. They're a great place to meet new people, to find out how to become involved in local and state issues, and in the case of town halls, make your voice heard.

West-side Park

Yesterday, July 24, 2013, the Daily News Journal published this article on a future west-side park. The park would encompass approx. 410 acres and cost $20.6 million over the course of several years. The main call for the park comes because of the population growth on the western side of Murfreesboro.

This $20.6 million park would be on top of the $104 million Greenway/Blueway "Master Plan" and in fact several miles of new greenways and multiple trail heads are already planned for areas west of I-24 (within the "Master Plan"). They will connect Barfield Crescent Park with Old Fort Park and the rest of the city. There is no doubt that the city's population is growing, however according to the 2013-14 budget the population growth has slowed tremendously in recent years compared to the rest of the 2000s. [pg 24]

City government seems to be under the delusion that population growth will continue at an exponential rate for years to come and based on that growth they can continue to spend more and more money. This is a fallacious defense for the spending. While Detroit is a severe example, the city experienced rapid population growth between 1900-1960, and then the good times ended and the city's population has dropped every year since. This collapse has left many a once beautiful park to become overgrown and the home of vagrants. Murfreesboro's population growth outpaces the growth of the State's population by over 40% which means in order for Murfreesboro to grow other areas must lose population. In fact, Murfreesboro is the main driver of population growth for the entire county. However, 25,000 of the people in Murfreesboro attend MTSU, a great many do not stay in the city once they graduate. This means that the City must provide services for these students (police, fire, parks, roads etc), but doesn't get the benefit of decades worth of tax revenue that a long-term resident brings in. I mention this only to further the point that while the City Council appears to plan for things based on a permanent population and continual growth, we must realize that those numbers are inflated when you consider the student population.

For the 2013-14 budget, the City expects a revenue increase of 1%. They City also makes a point of letting us know that revenues for the City are still less than those in 2009. [pg 13] The City has also conceded the issue of property taxes; 2014 will be the 15th year without a property tax increase. Yet, despite population growth, revenues from property taxes continues to fall. [pg 14] They have exchanged raising property taxes for the ever rising revenues generated from sales taxes. [pg 15]The City has hitched themselves to sales tax revenue, revenue which must depend on a growing economy (which is still anemic nationally) and a growing population (which is beginning to slow).

The following graphs shows you the trends in revenue and expenditures. Logically, they should be correlated, but spending outpaces revenue.

Revenues have grown slightly over the past few years, but not at the pace spending has increased. The City expects revenue of $113 million for 2013-14, of this slightly more than 10% is earmarked for the "recreation" budget (golf courses and parks). And while 10% may not sound like much, it amounts to the 3rd largest single expenditure (after police and fire). The most disturbing thing however, is the growth year-over-year of the recreation budget compared to other departments and the overall budget.

For 2010-11, revenues were $101.8 million, for 2013-14 they're $113.3 million - an increase of 11.2%. 

Expenditures for the same periods were $102.6 million and $118.2 million, an increase of 15.2% (and a running deficit each year). [pg 39]

Now for the fun, the recreation budget for 2010-11 was $9.44 million, and for 2013-14 it is $13.77 million - an increase of 44.5%. The Police Dept. budget only grew 13% and the Fire Dept. budget grew a mere 11%, while the Transportation Dept. budget actually decreased 10.7%. [pg 39]

The problem isn't that parks are evil or that we don't want to live in a beautiful and enjoyable city. The problem is that, when federal and county taxes continue to rise, when the incomes of citizens are barely increasing, the City deems fit to spend ever more millions on parks. The City spends more on recreation than the combined budgets of the Senior Citizens Dept., Transportation Dept., Solid Waste Dept., and Public Health & Welfare Dept. [pg 39]

It simply does not make sense. 

Source - 2014 City Budget (PDF)

City Council Meeting for 7/11/2013

Tonight's council meeting was fairly uneventful. At the start of it there were perhaps 50 people in the audience and by the end there were less than 10.

Re-zoning (13-OZ-R-29, 13-OZ-29, application # 2013-410)

The key feature tonight was a public hearing on the re-zoning of nearly 90 acres along Memorial Blvd and Haynes Drive. It was the same property from several months ago which resulted in over a dozen people speaking against the re-zoning and letting the Council know their concerns (none-too-subtly either).
The primary concerns were: what type of business(s) would be allowed, water drainage, and who would be paying for the improvements to the property - the City or whatever business ended up moving in?

After being sent back the the Planing Commission, and further discussions and local meetings, the new plan proposed was considerably more appropriate and took into consideration many of the concerns held by those who lived in the area. This particular area consists of 11 individual properties owned by 9 families. Along most of Memorial Blvd are businesses with the exception of this area which is a long-standing residential neighborhood, especially west down Haynes Dr.

In the end, the representatives of the property owners and the Planning Commission recommended a number of changes to the original proposal. Among them, a 40 foot-wide buffer (twice the size required by regulation) between the re-zoned property and the neighborhood, re-zoning 63 acres as commercial highway but re-zoning a 250-ft wide strip of land (approx 15 acres) at the back of the property (adjacent to the private homes) as commercial fringe, which will further restrict the way that portion can be used. The commercial highway portion (the 63 acres) will be bound by a number of restrictive covenants as well, including: forbidding the construction of adult business, tattoo parlors, communication towers, mobile home parks, and much more.

Additionally, to help tackle the drainage problem that has plagued the area for decades, a small bit of land, about an acre, referred to as the "notch" will be set aside for the construction of retention ponds and other water control systems.

There are still some questions regarding who is paying for the improvements. Various improvements to the property must be constructed before any business would want to purchase the property (and to-date there are no interested parties at all), and before the land could become officially available for development. The general feeling is that, the City will spend perhaps $1 million or more in improvements on what is private property in order to attract business. In other words, the 11 property owners will be getting $1 million in free land improvements and then the land owners will sell the land to a developer for a tidy profit. Will the new owner be required to repay the City or is the City in the business of well, being in business?

Today was only the first reading (three are need for passage) and despite the remaining concerns over who pays for what the proposal was approved unanimously. My opinion is that the City really did listen to the concerns of the public and the new plan is a very good compromise. What actually ends up happening with the improvements and costs will remain to be seen.

IT Dept. Plan

Another interesting item tonight was the passage of a 5 year "master plan" for the City's IT Dept. The plan was very well thought out and the items, programs, applications etc requested made perfect sense. It also was approved unanimously. My main concern is that the plan costs $9.5 million. Granted that's over 5 years so $1.9 million/yr or about 1.6% of the budget; however, the 15 minute proposal did not include any cost-benefit analysis and I gathered that they hadn't even begun the process of figuring out how much (if anything) the IT plan would save the City. I am fairly sure that the plan will, in the end, save the City real money and energy but at the same time I am a little disappointed that they approved something without having full knowledge of the tangible benefits it would bring.

Final thoughts

At one point in the meeting Mayor Tommy Bragg said "We consider our town to be a city within a park." Murfreesboro is a beautiful city and everyone wants to live in a lovely area. Yet, when you look back at all of the problems arising from the Mayor's insistence at funding any and every matter of leisure and aesthetics I found the statement in very bad taste. The City is $230 million in debt, they approved a $105 million plan (without secured funding) that will inevitably lead to more debt for enormous Greenway expansion, the City spends $2 million a year on golf courses - golf courses which by my figures have actually ran a deficit to the tune of $721,000 since 2010, we spend over $15 million alone on recreation every single year. This includes $11,000 for freaking trophies, $6,000 for trashcans, iPads, TVs etc, and the "recreation budget" is one of the largest expenditures the City makes. We spend nearly as much on leisure as we do on our Fire Dept!

I would like to live in a beautiful city. On the other hand, I would rather go without golf if that meant we had the money to build sufficient sidewalks and enough schools without having to go deeper into debt or without needing handouts from the federal government. As it stands, without debt and federal aid we can't build schools. Perhaps the Mayor needs to get his priorities straight.

Jacob Bogle
July 11, 2013

Additional reading:

7/11/13 agenda,  pg. 157 (re-zoning)

Live Chat with Chief of Police Chrisman - Transcript

The Daily News Journal hosted a live online chat today with Murfreesboro Chief of Police, Glenn Chrisman.

The chat lasted a little bit over an hour and yet only 12 questions were answered.

Here is the transcript. I have left everything as it was, typos and all.

Live chat with Chief Chrisman

Tuesday May 14, 2013

1:54        Welcome to the dnj.com live chat with Police Chief Glenn Chrisman. We're about to get started. We've already got a few questions rolling in. We'll answer the questions in the order in which they're received.

1:58        Let's just start by welcoming Chief Chrisman. First, as someone who's grown up here and spent your entire career here, can you tell us how the police department's role in the community has evolved since you were a kid and since you started with MPD in 1976?

2:01      Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

I think that increased community involvement is a big change from earlier years and also the change in the public's expectation of police services. Since 2001 police have significant local responsibilities for homeland security that were not part of policing during the early part of my career.

2:01        Comment From Timothy Meredith 

In your presentation to the city council you mentioned that Homeland security is a priority and went as far to reference Newtown and Sandy Hook in defense of the cameras. Are you stating that if we did not have the cameras and had more officers patrolling traffic that we would have a mass shooting or terrorist attack, or be unable to adequately handle a terrorist situation?

2:05        Comment From Axl 

Good Afternoon, Chief. In the photo enforcement report you sent to the council on 4/30/13, you said that a new photo enforcement system installed around 2011 was an “improvement” and “helped reduced crashes overall”. However, the year after the new system was installed, crashes at photo enforced intersections rose. In particular, side-angle crashes rose over 37% after the new system was installed. Could you clarify what about the new system is an improvement?

2:06        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

No. I think that the use of technology such as the cameras allows us to redeploy police resources for neighborhood patrols, directed patrol assignments, community policing initiatives, school education programs, and other needs. In this way, the use of technology is a force multiplier enabling police resources to be used more effectively in other areas.

2:13        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

The improvements included a new sensor system that included left hand turns at the monitored intersections. While crashes increased for 2011/12 over the 2011 year, there had been a steady decreasing trend at those intersections from 2008/09 through 2010/11. For the period of 2007/08 through 2011/12, side angle collisions at these intersections decreased from 71 to 48, a 32.3% decrease. If side angle crash trends for the 2012/13 year continue as projected we anticipate a significant decrease for this fiscal year. For the same time period (2007/08 through 2011/12) side angle crashes at all signalized intersections decreased from 615 to 359, a 41.6% decrease.

2:13        Comment From Jacob Bogle 

Chief Chrisman, you and the Mayor made it very clear that the purpose of the red light cameras was to enhance safety and even showed videos of accidents prior to the cameras being deployed. How would the threat of a ticket deter what were obviously drunk and impaired drivers? Would not an on site police officer make the streets safer by being able to apprehend the drunk drive then & there, instead of having to wait for dispatch?

2:18        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

the focus of the program is to change driver behavior at signalized intersections and to reenforce the message that "red means stop". Impaired drivers are the focus of all police officers including our Murfreesboro Police Alcohol Countermeasures Team (MPACT). Last year in Murfreesboro there were 824 DUI arrests. However, in calendar year 2012, MPD officers responded to an average of over 300 calls for service daily. The use of camera technology allows us to use our most precious resources, our police officers, in the most efficient and economical way possible.

2:18        Comment From Gunner 

With websites like 'Photography is not a crime' and public activists, what is the policy for citizens to film police in action from a safe distance and what is a safe distance?

2:22        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

MPD actually has in-car video in most of the Patrol fleet. It is our policy to record most interactions with the public. Any citizen may film police officers from a safe place so long as they do not interfere with the officer in the performance of their duties.

2:23        Comment From Timothy Meredith 

You mention that it would allow you to redeploy resources to neighborhood patrols, directed patrol assignments, community policing initiatives, school education programs, but how do any of these subjects relate to homeland security? In a homeland security emergency situation could you not proactively pull resources from all areas including basic patrol? I fail to see how having police patrol traffic would hinder the police department's ability to respond to a Homeland Security situation.

2:27        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

Part of the idea of homeland security is detecting suspicious activity before it turns criminal. By allowing officers to proactively patrol, they observe activities and not only reduce crime, but gather intelligence that could be connected to homeland security threats. Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber) was apprehended by a police officer following a traffic stop.

2:27        Taylor Loyal:

With the push for more school resource officers following Sandy Hook, do you feel we have an adequate police presence in Murfreesboro City Schools?

2:30        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

MPD has a team of DARE and GREAT officers that partner with Murfreesboro City Schools to provide a police presence in our City Schools. In addition to the curriculum provided, they assist teachers and administrators with school safety issues and other campus related concerns. At present, I believe we do have an adequate police presence in Murfreesboro City Schools (MCS). We are continuing to work with MCS to strengthen and improve security safety issues.

2:30        Comment From Timothy Meredith 

If we have less police paroling traffic and stopping people at lights, would that not mean less possibility of stopping people such as Timothy McVeigh? Would that not mean less possibility of stopping drunk drivers who run red lights?

2:35        Comment From Glenn Chrisman  

In order for us to provide traditional enforcement at one red light at the same level as the automated system, we would need a minimum of 4 officers for one approach at one intersection for a limited period of time. By deploying these resources city-wide, they are able to cover more territory and observe for violations in the larger geographical area.

2:37        Taylor Loyal:

We seemed to have seen an increase in gang activity in recent years in Murfreesboro. Can you discuss your creation of the gang task force and how effective it has been?

2:44        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

In 2009 we partnered with CADCOR to implement an anti gang education program for at risk youth and a gang investigative unit whose focus is to investigate and prosecute gang related crimes. The Gang Resistance Education And Training (GREAT) provides anti gang education which begins at the fourth grade level in selected Murfreesboro City Schools. We believe that anti-gang education prepares children to resist gang recruitment efforts, and that target enforcement of criminal violations committed by suspected gang members has improved the safety of our City and its neighborhoods.

2:44        Comment From Jacob Bogle 

If we aren't spending money on having officers at the intersections, and if ATS are the ones who operate the camera system, what is the $740,000 allocated in the budget to red light cameras spent on?

2:48        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

When ATS upgraded the system in 2011 the capital investment in the infrastructure replacements was approximately $2.4 million. The expenditure in the Police Budget represents payments to ATS to defray the cost of this infrastructure investment which was no cost to the City. Violators therefore pay for the enforcement of red light violations.

2:49        Comment From Timothy Meredith 

Of course they are able to observe for more red light violations, but again how does that help prevent or stop drunk drivers? If Timothy McVeigh got an automated ticket in the mail, would that have stopped him? If a drunk driver gets a ticket in the mail, does that stop them from potentially wrecking into someone after the red light violation occurs?

2:53        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

If officers are able to focus patrols and call responses on other police duties, excluding red light enforcement, they have more time for DUI enforcement, selective traffic enforcement, suspicious activity investigation and reporting among a myriad of other duties.

2:58        Taylor Loyal:

We'd like to thank Chief Chrisman and all of our readers for participating today. We look forward to future live chats. I understand you all have a Peace Officers Memorial Day coming up this week. Could you tell us about that?

2:59        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

I would like to invite the readers to come to the 2013 Peace Officers Memorial Day this Thursday at 9:00am on the Civic Plaza (outside City Hall). The day was set aside by Congress to honor and pay respect to officers who gave their life in the line of duty. Locally, we have lost 9 police officers. Trooper William James, MPD Officer Herbert McClanahan, US Deputy Marshal Sam Vaughn, Trooper Lewis Hendon, MPD Officer Butch Tomlinson, MPD Officer Kay Rogers, MPD Officer Matt Lovejoy, and Trooper Andy Wall will all be honored. Please join us in remembering those fallen officers.

2:59        Comment From Glenn Chrisman 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this live chat.

End of transcript.

The main participants were myself, Axl David and Tim Meredith, and the three of us are co-founders of the Murfreesboro C.A.P.E project. Taylor Loyal is a DNJ employee and was the moderator.

We asked several questions which were not answered including one dealing with the fact that a person who is caught by a red light camera is under no real obligation to pay since the City cannot force them, it is not listed against their driving record and collection agencies cannot list it on their credit report.

Another question dealt with the efficacy of the system and since that there is no direct evidence that the camera system works, why should we install more of them?

As you can see, Chief Chrisman deflected most of the questions, refusing to answer them directly. 12 questions

Murfreesboro C.A.P.E Response to the Murfreesboro Post

In response to the recent Murfreesboro Post article by Jonathan Fagan.

Your recent article concerning the City’s red light camera system was not exactly accurate and more than a little biased.

Here are the facts:

According to the Chief of Police’s report, the total number of crashes (of all types) between 2008 and 2012 has declined 11% per year on average. However, the number of crashes seen at camera enforced intersections has only fallen 1.1% per year on average.  This clearly shows that the camera enforcement system is not working as expected.

Furthermore, side-angle crashes at enforced intersections have decline 32% since 2008, while the decline at all intersections has dropped 42%. The overall trend is a decline in intersection crashes unrelated to the camera system.  In fact, between 2011-12 side angle crashes at camera enforced intersections rose 37.15% compared to a decline of 42.1% at all intersections.

TCA 55-8-198 (and related sections) makes it plain that a violator who does not pay their fine will not have their failure to pay noted on either their driver’s license record or their credit report. Councilman Smotherman’s point was simple – the law, as written, lacks teeth, and in reality any driver may simply ignore their citations and the City is without recourse to force them to pay.  Additionally, the system sets up two different punishments for the same crime, a potential violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Consider this:  An individual runs a red light and is caught by the camera system.  They are issued a citation and refuse to pay it (as 70% of those cited do). The violation does not appear on their record and even the collection agency is prohibited from listing a payment failure on their credit report.

Another individual runs a red light and is caught by a physical police officer, they are cited and any failure to pay can result in arrest. The citation itself is also noted on their driving record.

American Traffic Solutions (an Arizona based company that runs the system) receives 50% of the citation fee which, since 2008, amounts to $1.87 million that has left our community and gone to an out-of-state company. And while Mayor Bragg has insisted that safety is their main concern, ATS specifically states that their systems are geared toward providing a revenue source for municipalities. 

The videos shown of intersection accidents are a prime example of why the red light camera system fails to offer safety. The offending drivers were not simply running a red light; they were driving incredibly recklessly, were drunk and showed no regard for the safety of others. The threat of being caught on camera is hardly a sufficient deterrence. If there was a police officer watching the intersection, in person, they could have apprehended the driver then and there and prevented any further accidents down the road. As the system stands, the drunk driver could continue on for miles before a police officer catches up to them. 

ATS, a private company, is doing the work of the police and yet is free from any oversight. No one knows how long they keep the day-to-day video they capture, nor do we know if they sell the information they receive or if their systems are protected from computer attacks. Seven states have banned the use of these camera systems and numerous cities have removed them from their streets. On top of that, courts in California and Missouri have ruled against these systems, citing for one thing - a major conflict of interest. We at Murfreesboro C.A.P.E are committed to having these cameras taken down and to return the running of our city, and its agencies, back to the citizens of Murfreesboro. 

-- Jacob Bogle

Murfreesboro C.A.P.E (Citizens Against Photo Enforcement) 

https://www.facebook.com/MurfreesboroCAPE

Thoughts on the Public Debt & Expenditures of the City of Murfreesboro

Background

The City of Murfreesboro is located at the geographic center of the State of Tennessee. It has a certified population of 109,031 (July 2012 census). The City’s population growth has exceeded 42% per decade on average.

Revenues

Despite a population increase of 4.2%/year, revenues have only increased an average of 2.5% per year. _{[1-pg 11]} Additionally, revenues from property taxes (the largest single revenue source) have remained comparatively flat since 2009. _{[1-pg 12]} For fiscal year 2013, the City of Murfreesboro has budgeted $112,050,683 in revenues for the General Fund and plans to expend $117,311,137 for the year; a difference of $5,260,454. _{[1-pg 14]}

Expenditures

Construction of Phase IV of the Stones River Greenway is expected to cost $4,750,000. While most of this will come from federal grants, 20% of it ($950,000) will come directly from borrowed funds. _{[1-pg 36]}

The City plans to spend $15.2 million for Parks & Recreation and Golf courses which is a 67% increase over the 2009-10 year. Recreation in general (parks, greenways, golf course etc) ranks as the 3^rd largest single expenditure for the City which nearly ties the amount spent on the Fire Dept; the Debt Service Fund comes in at number one with $26.1 million budgeted. More is spent on “recreation” than city schools, the drug fund, senior citizens, the street department, and transportation combined. _{[1-pg s 41 & 63]}

The City also boasts about having the highest rate of pay increases for any city in the state of Tennessee. The pay increases amount to $1.3 million per year and in terms of pay increase percentages, is 3 times higher than that of Chattanooga (whose revenue for 2013 is $97 million more than Murfreesboro’s). _{[1-pgs 20-21] [2-pg 6]} 

City Budget Departments (Personnel)

Note: Personnel counts include full and part-time employees. The averages are based solely on the number of employees. All budgets are limited to “personnel costs” only which includes salaries, overtime, medical, retirement (401a), insurance, Social Security, pensions and worker’s compensation. 

The General & Administrative Dept of the city (Mayor, administration, etc) consists of 32 employees with a personnel budget of $1,827,291 or $57,102 per person. _{[1-pgs 71-72]}

Information Technology Dept: 11 employees and a personnel budget of $752,026 -- $68,366/person.  _{[1-pgs 77-78]}

The Communications Dept has 8 employees and personnel costs of $496,000 which averages $62,000 per person_{. [1-pg 84]}

Legal: 7 employees, $715,732 budget -- $102,247/person. _{[1-pgs 88-89]}

Human Resources: 9 employees, $648,608 budget -- $72,067/person. _{[1-pgs 93-94]}

Judicial: 6 employees, $362,743 budget -- $60,457/person. _{[1-pgs 97-98]}

Police: 316 employees (including officers and support persons), $20,114,644 budget -- $63,653/person. Without insurance, retirement etc, the total net salary is $43,711/person. _{[1-pgs 106-107]}

     --The operation of the City’s red light cameras are costing $740,000/yr. _{[1-pg 108]}

Fire & Rescue: 189 employees, $13,793,603 budget -- $72,982/person. _{[1-pgs 114-115]}

     -- For 2012 Fire & Rescue responded to 11,566 calls. For their 2012 budget this equals to $1,077 per call. _{[1-pg 113]}

Building and Codes: 22 employees, $1,574,278 budget -- $71,558/person. _{[1-pgs 120-212]}

Planning and Engineering: 18 employees, $1,476,815 budget -- $82,045/person. _{[1-pgs 129-31]}

Transportation: 25 employees, $1,203,928 budget -- $48,157/person. It is important to note here that 9 employees are part-time. _{[1-pgs 136-38]}

     -- The city will spend $185,000 on traffic signals. _{[1-pg 138]}

Street: 29 employees, $1,677,543 budget -- $57,846/person. _{[1-pg 144-45]}

     -- The Street Dept estimates it will resurface 56 miles of roadways for 2013. When averaged against the department’s operating budget (minus personnel & capital expenses) this equals $43,216/per mile. _{[1-pg 143]}

-- The State Street Aid Fund is managed by the Street Dept. It has no employees of its own but does contain a budget with $2,830,000 in funding and $2,830,750 in expenditures. This fund comes from the State Fuel Tax Allocation to the City and is used to help maintain sidewalks, drainage, and streets within the City limits. _{[1-pgs 209-212]}

Urban Environment: 15 employees, $798,672 budget -- $53,244/person. The personnel budget amounts to 77% of the entire budget for this department which is $1,030,820. _{[1-pgs 151-52]}

     -- The operations & maintenance, supplies and materials budget for 2013 is only 14.6% of the total allocated. _{[1-pg 152]}

Civic Plaza: 1 employee, $47,485 personnel budget. The total budget for this department (which only includes the plaza) is $109, 909 with only $17,000 going to operations and maintenance. _{[1-pgs 154-55]}

Parks and Recreation: 324 employees (254 are part-time), $5,729,787 budget -- $17,684/person. However, full-time wages are $4,073,077 (full personnel budget minus part-time wages) or $58,186/person. _{[1-pgs 165-66]}

     -- Additionally, $11,565 has been budgeted for trophies and $2,500 for “educational animals.” _{[1-pg 166]} As well as, $6,000 for 10 trashcans (yet only $1,090 for 10 picnic tables), 7 computers, a 32” TV, an iPad, 2 video cameras, and a TV with DVD player. _{[1-pg 167-69]}

Senior Citizens: 19 employees (10 part-time), $617,505 budget -- $32,500/person. _{[1-pg 174]}

Public Golf Course: 52 employees (38 part-time), $1,267,943 budget -- $24,383/person. _{[1-pgs 181-83]}

     -- The total combined budget for the Old Fort Golf Course and the VA course is $2,023,404 which makes personnel costs 62.6% of the budget. _{[1-pg 184]}

     -- Based on the budgets given, revenues from the golf courses only constitute $1,920,974 which means the courses run at a deficit to taxpayers. The deficits are: 2010 -$45,653, 2011 -$302,605, 2012 -$271,067, 2013 -$102,430. This is a combined loss of $721,755. _{[1-pgs 41 & 184]}

Solid Waste: 45 employees, $2,517,342 budget -- $55,940/person. _{[1-pgs 188-89]}

Airport Fund: 7 employees (6 part-time), $194,953 budget -- $27,850/person. _{[1-pgs 217-18]}

Community Development Fund: 3 employees, $131,229 budget -- $43,743/person. _{[1-pgs 226-27]}

Risk Management Fund: 3 employees, $275,787 budget -- $91,929/person. _{[1-pgs 243-44]}

Fleet Services: 13 employees, $910,652 budget -- $70,050/person. _{[1-pgs 247-48]}

Interestingly, the Parking Garage department has an $116,975 budget with no employees. 89% of the budget is for the electric bill. _{[1-pgs 157-58]}

In all, the City lists 787 employees. _{[1-pg 288]} If we divide the number of employees by the amount allocated for personnel ($57,134,566), the average City employee makes $72,598. Of course most employees make a good deal less than this (as little as $21,000) and others, such as the City Manager, can earn as much as $163,856. For a full list of pay grades please see pages 283-287 of the City’s budget.

Debt

The City’s credit rating is AA- (Stands & Poor) and Aa2 (Moody’s). _{[1-pg 202]}

The City has incurred deficits for 3 out of the past 5 years. Although the budget authors assure us that the City is on track to pay off its debts in 10 years, between 2012 and 2013 the City issued $44 million in new loans. _{[1-pg 236]} The budget also does not include the estimated $104 million in unfinanced expansions to the City’s greenway system. _[3] As of 2013, the City has $227,015,053 in long-term debt with a debt limit of $421,978,966. _{[1-pg 207]} The 2013 amount budgeted for debt interest payments is $6.7 million _{[1-pg 42]} which, if it were its own department, would be the 4^th largest in the entire budget (3^rd largest if we take out the Debt Service Fund)  and is the largest single line-item expense. _{[1-pg 63]} The Debt Service Fund accounts for over ¼ of the entire City budget and is the largest item in the budget, eclipsing the Police Department by over $1 million. _{[1-pg 63] The debt service costs every citizen $61.45/yr in taxes which doesn't sound like much, however the interest payment amount has risen 246% since 2009-2010. [1-pg 42]}

The debt per person in Murfreesboro is $2,082. The debt-per-person of the city, state and finally the nation looks like this:

Murfreesboro - $2,082

Tennessee - $937 (the State is $6 billion in debt) _[4]

National - $53,300 (using $16.8 trillion) _[5]

All of this means that each and every man, woman, and child in this city is burdened with $56,319 worth of public debt.

 -- Jacob Bogle

5/5/2013

Sources:

1. 2013 Murfreesboro City budget - http://www.murfreesborotn.gov/uploadedFiles/government/Finance/BudgetFY2013.pdf

2. 2013 Chattanooga operating budget - http://www.chattanooga.gov/images/citymedia/finance/2013_Final_Budget_all.pdf

3. The Murfreesboro Greenway Situation - http://www.jacobboglewrites.com/2013/03/the-murfreesboro-greenway-situation.html

4. 2012 State of Tennessee Indebtedness Report -http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/repository/sl/NewsAndUpdates/12312012StateIndebtednessReportfinal.pdf

5. US Debt Clock – www.usdebtclock.org