Sunday, June 29, 2014

2014 Voter's Guide & Candidate List

Here is a quick guide to the upcoming elections as well as a candidates list for the primaries and general election - 130 candidates in all!

Voting Dates

The State Primary & County General election is on Aug.7, however early voting starts July 18 and goes through Aug. 2. The General Election is on Nov. 4, with early voting being Oct. 15 and going to Oct. 30.

ID Laws

Tennessee does have voter ID laws which help to protect the integrity of our democratic system. To vote you need to bring at least one of these forms of identification (they may be current OR expired):
TN driver's license;
TN Dept. of Safety photo ID;
TN gun carry permit with photo;
US military photo ID;
US passport;
Or, any other photo ID issued by the federal or Tennessee state government.

There are exemptions to this requirement:
If you are an absentee voter;
If you live in a nursing home or assisted living facility and vote at the facility;
If you are hospitalized at the time of voting;
If you have a religious objection to being photographed;
Or, if you are indigent and unable to obtain a photo ID without paying a fee (non-driving photo IDs cost $9.50 and are valid for 5 years).

You can obtain a free photo ID for the purposes of voting by visiting any county DMV or by calling 1-866-849-3548.
For additional election information you can call the TN Division of Elections at 1-877-850-4949.

Candidate List for the Aug. 7, 2014 Election
If available, I've linked each candidate's name with their campaign website or campaign Facebook page so you can learn more about them.

Primary Election Candidates
Governor:
Mark "Coonrippy" Brown (R)                              Charles V. Brown (D)
Bill Haslam (R)                                                Kennedy S. Johnson (D)
Basil Marceaux, Sr. (R)                                   William H. "John" McKamey (D)
Donald R. McFolin (R)                                      Ron Noonan (D)

US Senate:
Christian Agnew (R)                                       Terry Adams (D)
Lamar Alexander (R)                                      Gordon Ball (D)
Joe Carr (R)                                                   Larry Crim (D)
George S. Flinn (R)                                        Gary G. Davis (D)
John D. King (R)
Brenda S. Lenard (R)
Erin K. Magee (R)

US House of Representatives Dist. 4:
John Anderson (R)                                          Lenda Sherrell (D)
Scott DesJarlais (R)
Oluyomi "Fapas" Faparusi, Sr. (R)
Steve Lane (R)
David R. Tate (R)
Jim Tracy (R)
Michael S. Warden (R)

Tennessee State Senate Dist. 13Bill Ketron (R)

Tennessee State House of Representatives 
Dist. 34:
Rick Womick (R)

Dist. 37:
Eddie Smotherman (R)
Dawn White (R)

Dist. 48:
Adam Coggin (R)                           William B. Campbell (D)
Rick Peppers (R)
Bryan Terry (R)

Dist: 49:
Mike Sparks (R)                            Mike Williams (D)
Robert Stevens (R)

Republican State Executive Committee (you may vote for one male candidate and one female candidate in your district)
Dist. 13 Committeeman: Tim Rudd    or    James Gann (write-in candidate)

Dist. 13 Committeewoman: Kelsey C. Ketron    or    Mishelle P. Perkins

Dist. 14 Committeeman: Lance Frizzell    or    Jim Sandman

Dist. 14 Committeewoman: Lynne Davis    or    JoAnne Skidmore

Democrat State Executive Committee (you may vote for one male candidate and one female candidate in your district)
Dist. 13 Committeeman: Darrell Bouldin    or    Tommy Bragg

Dist. 13 Committeewoman: Mary A. Eckels    or    Kimberli R. Jensen

Dist. 14 Committeeman: Mark F. Farrar

Dist. 14 Committeewoman: Brenda Abels    or    Joan G. Hill


County General Election

Circuit Court Judge Division I - 16th Judicial District: Jeffrey L. Peach (R)    or   Mark Rogers (I)

Circuit Court Judge Division II - 16th Judicial District: Nathan Nichols (R)   or    David Bragg (I)

Circuit Court Judge Division III - 16th Judicial District: Keith Siskin (R)

Circuit Court Judge Division IV - 16th Judicial District: Royce Taylor (I)

Chancellor - 16th Judicial District: Howard W. Wilson (R)

District Attorney General - 16th Judicial District: Jennings H. Jones (R)

Public Defender - 16th Judicial District: Gerald L. Melton (R)

General Sessions Judge - Part I: Kevin Hodges (R)   or   Ben H. McFarlin, Jr. (I)

General Sessions Judge - Part II: Barry Tidwell (R)   or   David Loughry (I)

General Sessions Judge - Part III: Toby Gilley (R)   or   Larry D. Brandon (D)

Juvenile Court Judge: Donna S. Davenport (R)

Sheriff:
Robert Arnold (R)
Bill Kennedy (D)
Dale Armour (I)
Jim R. Tramel (I)

Rutherford County Mayor: 
Ernest G. Burgess (R)
Heather A. Brown (I)
Teresa St. Clair (I)

County Commission
Dist. 1:                                                 Dist. 2:
Doug Shafer (R)                                    Steve Pearcy (R)

Dist. 3:                                                 Dist. 4:
Will P. Jordan (R)                                 Jon D. Jaques (R)
                                                           Jon Frazier (I)
                                                           Robert Peay (I)

Dist. 5:                                                 Dist. 6:
Carol Cook (R)                                     Joe F. Jernigan (R)

Dist 7:                                                  Dist. 8:
Michael D. Kusch (R)                            Edward Phillips (R)
                                                           Pettus L. Read (I)
                                                           Steve Spence (I)

Dist. 9:                                                 Dist. 10:
Joe A. Gourley (R)                                Brad Turner (R)

Dist. 11:                                               Dist. 12:
Rhonda Allen (R)                                  Robert Stevens (R)

Dist. 13:                                              Dist. 14:
Paul Johnson (R)                                 Charles Baum
Chris Deal (I)                                       Tony B. Gains (I)

Dist. 15:                                               Dist. 16:
David Nipper (R)                                   Phillip S. Dodd (R)
Tim Roediger (I)

Dist. 17:                                              Dist. 18:
Jeff Phillips (R)                                    Allen Mcadoo (R)

Dist. 19:                                              Dist. 20:
Shawn Kaplan (R)                                Trey Gooch (R)

Dist. 21:
Patsy L. Briley (R)
Chantho Sourinho (D)

County Trustee: Teb Batey

Circuit Court Clerk: Melissa Harrell (R)   or   Avent Lane (D)

County Clerk: Lisa D. Crowell  or   Pierrecia Lyons (D)

Register of Deeds: Heather Dawbarn

Rutherford County Road Board (non-partisan)
Zone 1: David Victory
Zone 2: Keith Bratcher
Zones 4: Dick Steagall

Rutherford County School Board (non-partisan)
Zone 3:
Veronica Buchanan
Howard Jones
Lisa W. Moore

Zone 4:
Wayne R. Blair
Eric Tuttobene

Zone 7:
Jody L. Bond
James C. Estes
Gabriel Fancher
Patrick McCarthy
Paul L. Peavy

Smyrna, Town Court Judge (non-partisan)
Lynn E. Alexander
Keta J. Barnes 
Jeremy Gourley
Cherie W. Meece
W. Alan Rose

Smyrna, Town Court Clerk (non-partisan)
Terry D. Davenport
Lisa K. R. Wagner



For more information please visit the Rutherford County Election Commission's website at http://www.rutherfordcountytn.gov/election/index.htm

Saturday, June 7, 2014

So What is the GOP Round table?


Put simply, the GOP Round table is a weekly discussion group that is open to the public. Every Friday at 5 pm, at the Rutherford County Republican Party headquarters at 111 E. Main St. engaged citizens come together to talk about a host of issues that concern local and national politics.

The round table began in mid-2013 and has been going strong ever since. The host of each week's round table usually prepares several potential topics for discussion and then allows the free flow of ideas from the group. Sometimes we come up with real solutions and other times we simply talk about that week's major news stories. There have been three primary hosts, Jo Anne Skidmore, Andrew Anderson, and recently, your's truly, Jacob Bogle. We have also had several guest hosts. 

(From the left: Heather Dawbarn - Register of Deeds, Jim Tracy - TN Senator, Brian Patterson - City Council Candidate)


Within the context of the round table, participants are able to learn a great deal about local politics and can meet at least one current elected official or candidate for office. Over the months, by my count, there have been around three dozen elected officials and candidates appear at the round table, with four being nearly weekly attendants. Beyond office holders, business owners, political activists, students, and everyday citizens regularly attend.  

Conversation can vary greatly week-to-week, and for that matter, minute-to-minute. We have had discussions on city and county budgets, problems of corruption, red-light cameras, the national debt, the war on terror, civil liberties, drug legalization, the healthcare industry, education and much more. Everyone's input is desired and everyone's views are respected, however, debates do happen and they've always been great fun. Over the course of the evening we can also end up talking about local history, personal and family stories, international affairs, and from time to time the host may bring historical artifacts or foreign currency to complement that evening's conversation. The round table usually ends at 7 pm, but people are free to come and go as they please.    


The round table is also a great opportunity to network with others, make new friends, and get plugged in to a number of different causes - political and otherwise. So, if you enjoy serious, and not-so serious, conversation with a group of great individuals please stop by one Friday. There are snacks, and while it is hosted by the county GOP, it is open to the public



For more information:




Thursday, May 8, 2014

2014 Rutherford County GOP Primary Results


On May 6, 2014, the Rutherford County Republican Party held their primaries for the upcoming general election on Aug. 7, 2014. There were 58 Republican candidates vying for 37 positions. According to the County Party, this is the largest number of qualified candidates for the GOP primary in County history.

The race had a number of highlights, interesting outcomes and some controversies. Of course, in any local election things tend to be more colorful than on the federal level - regardless of party or position.

Here are some of the highlights:
1. There were 19 incumbents who won their primaries and 18 new candidates who won. Of the winners, 20 ran unopposed.
2. Gerald Melton (incumbent) won his primary despite having his credentials challenged and fierce competition.
3. Joe Frank Jernigan (incumbent) won his primary even though he has been caught up in a scandal involving stealing campaign signs.
4. Phil Griffin, a Mississippi native and campaign strategist, lost his bid to be Commissioner in Dist. 7 to Michael Kusch (also a new candidate) by over 17%. To my knowledge, only one of Griffin's several clients managed a victory - Sheriff Robert Arnold.
5. Sheriff Robert Arnold did win the primary 59.84% to 39.5%. However, his office has been plagued with controversy and he will be in for a tough general election.
6. Melissa Harrell narrowly beat incumbent Laura Bohling for Circuit Court Clerk is a three-way, hotly contested race. Each candidate pulled over 30% with Melissa winning 37.71%.

General voter totals:
In all, 15,074 people turned out to vote in the primary with a reported voter turnout percentage of 2.13%, however, this figure is likely to be wrong. According to County records, as of May 2013 there were 122,724 registered voters in the County. The number of registered voters is roughly 44% of the entire County population, so for 2014 there would be approx. 128,000 voters. Based solely on those numbers, the real voter turnout is more likely to be ~11.8%.

In the same 2013 period, there were 38,226 registered Republicans in the County (or 31.1% of all registered voters). Of course, this primary was open which means anyone could vote in it, however, the same could be said for previous primaries which makes me think the 38,226 figure is fairly accurate. If we adjust for 2014, there should be around 39,800 registered Republicans in the County; so then 37.87% of Republicans voted in this year's primary.

The largest race was for County Mayor with 14,510 votes cast and the smallest was for Dist. 1 Commissioner with only 113 votes cast for that position. The largest Commissioner primary was for Dist. 2 with 1,441 votes.

Based on averaging the percentages below, voter turnout is closer to 10.9% than 2.13%, and that is pretty close to the estimate I calculated above.

The total number of votes* for each district are: D1 - 132 votes (2.13% turnout), D2 - 1,486 (22.85%), D3 - 669 votes (10.36%), D4 - 966 votes (14.4%), D5 - 260 votes (4.1%), D6 - 1,030 votes (13.2%), D7 - 714 votes (8.95%), D8 - 1,004 votes (12.43%), D9 - 604 votes (15.16%), D10 - 501 votes (6.9%), D11- 493 votes (7.31%), D12 - 301 votes (5.35%), D13 - 573 votes (7.91%), D14 - 1,646 votes (18.82%), D15 - 1,099 (19.91%), D16 - 703 votes (9.76%), D17 - 315 votes (12.41%), D18 - 597 votes (9.15%), D19 - 526 votes (7.76%), D20 - 715 votes (8.33%), D21 - 739 votes (10.82%).

*This number includes votes for all offices which is why it's higher than the number of votes for just the respective Commissioner's primary. Vote counts and percentages come from the Election Commission.

Below are the names of those nominees that will represent the GOP in the upcoming general election. Incumbent victory in bold.

Circuit Court Judge 16th Div I – Jeffery L. Peach - unopposed, won 99.51% out of 9,975 votes
Circuit Court Judge 16th Div II – Nathan Nichols - unopposed, won 99.63% out of 9,263 votes
Circuit Court Judge 16th Div III – Keith Siskin - unopposed, won 99.77% out of 10,065 votes
Chancellor 16th Judicial D – Howard W. Wilson - unopposed, won 99.7% out of 10,061 votes
Dist Atty Generl 16th Dist – Jennings H. Jones - won 62.21% out of 12,616 votes
Public Defender 16th Dist – Gerald L. Melton - won 51.5% out of 11,929 votes
County Mayor – Ernest G. Burgess - won 57.86% out of 14,510 votes
County Commission Dist 01 – Doug Shafer - unopposed, won 94.69% out of 113 votes
County Commission Dist 02 – Steve Pearcy - won 59.54% out of 1,441 votes
County Commission Dist 03 – Will Jordan - unopposed, won 99.4% out of 504 votes
County Commission Dist 04 – Jon Jaques - unopposed, won 99.32% out of 587 votes
County Commission Dist 05 – Carol Cook - unopposed, won 99.51% out of 204 votes
County Commission Dist 06 – Joe Frank Jernigan - won 53.77% out of 967 votes
County Commission Dist 07 – Michael Kusch - won 51.26% out of 595 votes
County Commission Dist 08 – Edward Phillips - unopposed, won 95.1% out of 633 votes
County Commission Dist 09 – Joe A. Gourley - won 67.52% out of 508 votes
County Commission Dist 10 – Brad Turner - won 69% out of 458 votes
County Commission Dist 11 – Rhonda Allen - won 60.17% votes out of 462 votes
County Commission Dist 12 – Robert Stevens - unopposed, won 99.56% out of 226 votes
County Commission Dist 13 – Paul Johnson - unopposed, won 99.52% out of 414 votes
County Commission Dist 14 – Charles Baum - unopposed, won 99.56% out of 1,137 votes
County Commission Dist 15 – David Nipper - won 54.62% out of 844 votes
County Commission Dist 16 – Phillip Sugg Dodd - won 58.91% out of 606 votes
County Commission Dist 17 – Jeff Phillips - won 83.75% out of 277 votes
County Commission Dist 18 – Allen McAdoo - unopposed, won 98.75% out of 401 votes
County Commission Dist 19 – Shawn Kaplan - unopposed, won 98.86% out of 352 votes
County Commission Dist 20 – Trey Gooch - unopposed, won 99.2% out of 499
County Commission Dist 21 – Patsy L. Briley - unopposed, won 98.95% out of 475 votes
County Trustee – Teb Batey - unopposed, won 99.81 out of 11,835 votes
General Sessions Judge Part I – Kevin Hodges - won 50.93% out of 10,170 votes
General Sessions Judge Part II – Barry Tidwell - 38.72% out of 10,597 votes
General Sessions Judge Part III – Toby Gilley - unopposed, won 99.7% out of 10,563 votes
Juvenile Court Judge – Donna Scott Davenport - unopposed, won 99.76% out of 11,384 votes
Sheriff – Robert Arnold - won 59.84% out of 14,011 votes
Circuit Court Clerk – Melissa Harrell - won 37.71% out of 12,785 votes
County Clerk – Lisa Duke Crowell - unopposed, won 99.73% out of 10,901 votes
Register of Deeds – Heather Dawbarn - won 45.27% out of 12,835 votes


To see detailed results, visit the Rutherford County Election Commission's report on the primary.

--Jacob Bogle, May 8, 2014 (visit me on Facebook at Facebook.com/JacobBogle)

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Murfreesboro City Election Results & Commentary


Well it's finally over, at least the City's part anyway.

In the Murfreesboro City elections 7,927 people voted with a turn out of 11.32%. The turn out was substantially higher than that of the last election in 2012. However, the last mayoral election was in 2010 which tends to bring a greater number of voters. Even then, this year surpassed the 2010 turn out of 6,660 votes. Increasing voter turn out was a major goal this year and having an increase of 19% (which is greater than the population growth for that time) means we accomplished it - even though it's still much too low.

Congrats to our new Mayor, Shane McFarland, the three City Council winners Madelyn Scales Harris, Rick Lalance and Doug Young, and our new School Board members Phil King, Nancy Rainier and Collier Smith.

The overall results are here (winners highlighted in yellow):

(click for larger view)

Remember, you could vote for up to 3 candidates for City Council and School Board which means the total number of votes for those races will exceed the the total number of individual voters. The number of people who voted was still 7,927 (but, not everyone voted for people in each race). 

The referendum was to approve moving the date of City elections to coincide with the August elections for County races. This will actually save the City thousands of dollars and should greatly improve voter turnout, plus it just makes things simpler.

The precinct with the highest turnout was #3-1 Leanna Community Center with a 30.7% turnout and the lowest was #19-1 Creekmont General Baptist with zero voters. Here is a list of the total votes in each precinct:

Precinct #2-1 Lascassas School
Voters 61, turnout 11.32%

#3-1 Leanna Com. Ctr.
Voters 66, turnout 30.7%

#4-1 Kittrell Elem.
Voters 5, turnout 2.13%

#4-2 Discovery School
Voters 202, turnout 12.55%

#4-3 Oakland High 
Voters 266, turnout 13.84%

#4-4 Oakland Middle 
Voters 20, turnout 22.99%

#6-1 Whitworth Buchanan Middle
Voters 1, turnout 14.29%

#6-2 Christiana Middle
Voters 85, turnout 5.86%

#7-1 New Heights
Voters 114, turnout 6.44%

#7-2 Barfield Elem.
Voters 245, turnout 7.79%

#8-1 Rockvale Middle
Voters 30, turnout 6.71%

#13-1 Bellwood Preschool
Votes 357, turnout 10.37%

#13-2 Cason Lane Academy
Voters 270, turnout 6.98%

#14-1 Siegel Middle School
Voters 1,104, turnout 25.54%

#14-2 Erma Siegel Elementary
Voters 805, turnout 22.54%

#15-1 John Pittard Elem
Voters 693, turnout 20.03%

#15-2 Northfield School
Voters 687, turnout 16.51%

#16-1 Central Magnet School
Voters 504, turnout 12.05%

#16-2 Mitchell Neilson Elem
Voters 121, turnout 15.05%

#16-3 Lane Agri Park
Voters 98, turnout 4.98%

#17-1 North Blvd Church Of Christ
Voters 328, turnout 8.49%

#17-2 Kingwood Church Of Christ
Voters 27, turnout 2.59%

#17-3 Buds Tire
Voters 17, turnout 3.32%

#18-1 Patterson Park
Voters 423, turnout 10.18%

#18-2 Riverdale High School
Voters 310, turnout 12.91%

#19-1 Creekmont General Bapt
Voters 0, turnout 0%

#19-2 New Vision Baptist Church
Voters 197, turnout 10.24%

#20-1 Blackman United Methodist
Voters 129, turnout 8.02%

#20-2 Blackman High
Voters 205, turnout 6.02%

#21-1 Hobgood School
Voters 270, turnout 7.54%

#21-2 Blackfox Elm
Voters 287, turnout 19.82%


Thursday, March 20, 2014

Featuring City Council Candidate Jeff Rainwater

City Council Candidate Jeff Rainwater has provided his answers and thoughts on the questions I feel are the most pressing for this upcoming election. The first question also serves as an introduction to the candidate and it is followed by 9 additional issue specific questions. 

Thanks for taking part Jeff!
Don't forget, City elections are on April 15, 2014 and early voting begins March 26!





What is it that sets you apart from other candidates?

  • I believe my 17 years of corporate financial planning and budgeting in the healthcare industry gives me a unique skill set to tackle the fiscal issues facing the City along with being about to make the hard decision required of a Council member. The second trait that will make me successful as a council member is the passion I have for the way of life in Murfreesboro. Serving the people of Murfreesboro is a great way I can have an impact on the future of our city.


Do you support expanding or abolishing the automated red light camera program and why?

  • I believe we should abolish red light cameras. This is a privacy intrusion that should never be allowed.  Privacy is very important to me.


Currently the City is $241 million in debt (excluding retirement liabilities etc.) and we add between $25-50 million in new debt each year. How to do you propose addressing this issue?

  • A one-year moratorium on new debt would be a good start. This would allow us to retire debt without adding new. We should then entertain the idea of a required referendum for any debt issuance. Other ways to reduce borrowing would be privatization of parks, looking for alternative revenue streams from public transportation through advertising and sponsorships. We are projected to have $31M in debt service in FY2014. That more than it costs to build a city school.  I’m not completely opposed to using debt to finance items such as schools or roads, but our current Council has taking borrowing an extreme.


On top of the debt, for the past two years, the City has operated with a deficit of around $4.9 million/year. Would you support or oppose a requirement that each future budget be balanced; that is to say, deficits will not be allowed except perhaps for extraordinary circumstances?

  • We should require a balanced budget with the exception of allowing borrowing for school and road construction. Everything else including park and recreation should be funded through current year tax revenue. If we can’t afford it, we shouldn't build it. After a couple years of fiscal responsibility we should entertain a tax cut.


The City receives millions in state and federal grants each year for our schools. It is a well-established fact that under current conditions the City cannot build new schools without large amounts of grants, loans, and additional debt. Do you feel this is acceptable and what could we do to put us in a position to better pay for new schools?

  • In a growing city, using debt for school building may not be avoidable. However, we should be in a financial position to pay them off in 10 years. This would keep our total debt load at a minimum. If we keep debt low, we could fund more school building from current year taxes. There is a stream of revenue from property taxes on the new dwellings to service the construction debt.


In 2013, the City approved a 25-year “MasterPlan” to expand the Greenway system well beyond City limits. To achieve this, the City will engage in widespread eminent domain. Is the use of eminent domain an appropriate use of government force for the building of recreational facilities?

  • Unless the City is ready to purchase land and build the greenway, the plans should be so general that they can’t be tied to any single property. Eminent domain should never be used for a park or greenway. What the City has done with this 25-year plan is harm property values in the area they have identified for a greenway without compensation to the landowners. If you own land that has a line on a map drawn through it for a greenway, you have lost value without any compensation because the intentions of the City are part of public record. This type reckless behavior needs to stop now. This ridiculous spending will never happen, but the landowners who are perceived to be in the way are harmed. The City Council should be ashamed of what they have done here.


The City spends around $13 million each year on parks, recreational facilities, and golf courses. This makes recreation the 3rd largest budget item for the entire City government. The City also spends hundreds of thousands, split between two departments, simply to manage Civic Plaza and the parking garage. Cities across the nation, like Sandy Springs, Georgia, have begun privatizing non-essential services or entering into private-public partnerships in an attempt to save tax payer’s money and increase the quality of the services provided. 

Do you think we should take a serious look at finding new ways to do business, like privatizing a limited number of services, or do think that we should continue along our current path?

  • Privatization of Parks and Rec has been part of my platform from the beginning. Bryant Park in NY is a great example. If we carefully privatize our parks we could expand the system to all areas of town without use of taxpayer money. Other areas I have advocated for privatization are Solid Waste and Public Transportation. I have a recycling service that runs a much less dense route with the same type trucks and still makes a profit. It is obvious this would be an area we could study for privatization. Public Transportation usually takes a partnership, but we should have alternative revenue from advertising. 
  • Our Golf Operations should be leased to a company that is willing to take full risk for running these courses. The city should not be in the golf business. The same is true disk golf and tennis. There are times when making land in parks available for these type leases are necessary to facilitate the development of these facilities, but the city doesn't have to be on the hook financially.


Murfreesboro has grown at an astounding rate over the past few decades. Would you be in favor of implementing district representation for Council seats?

  • District representation is the number one issue that needs to be solved now. I live in Blackman, that has absolutely no representation. It is obvious with the way the City has treated the citizens in the Blackman Community with recent rezoning. Every citizen deserves to have a champion on the council from his or her area. Six out of 7 of our council members live with about 1.5 miles of each other. This is completely unacceptable. We need to next council to act to rectify this wrong. They should stand strong and not pass the buck until the 2016 elections to make the decision. That would just perpetuate the problems our at large system creates. District representation creates a natural check and balance between Council members.


Currently, citizens are only permitted to voice their concerns directly and personally to the full City Council during public hearings, and only if their concerns are related to the subject of the hearing. Do you support or oppose opening up a portion of each Council meeting to the general public to allow citizens to address the Council for any concern they may have?

  • I have voiced this with the Council many times. I have even used public hearings about unrelated items to get my voice heard. We should not be treated this way. Every resolution should have public hearing along with a general public hearing at the beginning of each meeting. The more public input the better.


What are your thoughts on entering into a “metro” form of government with the County?

  • Absolutely not. Metro governments usually become to large to effectively influence as a citizen. I don’t want a situation where northern Rutherford County could tell Murfreesboro what to do. The opposite wouldn't be fair to Smyrna or LaVergne. Even though in a perfect world a metro government could leave to efficiency, the distance it puts between the citizen and their government can be detrimental.


Candidate contact information:

Campaign website:  www.voterainwater.org 
Contact E-mail:  VoteRainwater@comcast.net
Phone number:  615-796-6860
Facebook page:  facebook.com/voterainwater
Twitter:   @voterainwater

Sunday, January 19, 2014

City Council: Axl David and Brian Patterson

The first two City Council candidates to be featured are Axl David and Brian Patterson.

Each candidate has provided their answers and thoughts on the questions I feel are the most pressing for this upcoming election. The first question also serves as an introduction to each candidate and it is followed by 9 additional issue specific questions.

Don't forget, City elections are April 15, 2014!

Axl David

Introductory question: What is it that sets you apart from other candidates?

I am truly a people’s candidate with no conflicts of interest whatsoever. I have no interest in running for higher office, and like my campaign motto, I want to be “Your Voice in the ‘Boro“. I understand the role of a City Councilman is to represent the residents and city employees, not outside interests. I was raised in the country and I take a common sense approach to governing.


Brian Patterson

1. Introductory question: What is it that sets you apart from other candidates?

I feel I am a well-rounded candidate with no conflicts of interests.  As a husband, father, and small business owner I have a vested interest in making sure our City remains a great place to raise a family and make a living, but I am not beholden to any specific industry or special interest group.
My goal is to be the most accessible candidate in this race and, if elected, the most accessible member of the city council.  I will not forget who I work for and my first responsibility, to serve the taxpayers.

Questionnaire

2. Do you support expanding or abolishing the automated red light camera program and why?

Axl David: I would do whatever it takes to immediately end the city’s unsafe, unethical, and unconstitutional photo enforcement program. Along with that, I would work with the city’s Streets Division to explore solutions that actually reduce red light running; such as strobes in the red lights, amber beacons to warn of an upcoming signal, speed breakers, speed tables, etc. Conversion of intersections to roundabouts almost completely eliminates fatal accidents (source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration).
One simple, cheap, and effective solution is to add black backplates to the signals so that they’re not “lost” in the sky. These are present at a lot of signals in Murfreesboro, but not at the signals at photo enforced intersections. According to the Michigan Department of Transportation, daytime visibility is increased by a staggering 33% when black back-plates are installed.

Brian Patterson: I fully support abolishing the red light camera program for two primary reasons. One, it is effectively removing millions of dollars out of our local economy and transferring the bulk of those funds to a company based in Arizona. I want to keep those dollars here in Murfreesboro. Second, I have yet to see any data that conclusively proves they are making us safer. The City’s own data doesn't prove it.
In November of 2014, the City will vote to renew its contract with American Traffic Solutions. If I am elected, I will vote NO on that extension.


3. Currently the City is $241 million in debt (excluding retirement liabilities etc.) and we add between $25-50 million in new debt each year. How to do you propose addressing this issue?

Axl David: The first and obvious step is to reduce non-essential spending. It is unacceptable that Parks and Recreation continue to dominate the city’s budget, while we need to go further in debt to pay for basics such as schools and police. In my opinion, the city’s leadership is not properly prioritizing their spending.
One solution I feel strongly about is privatization of non-essential services, as long as it can happen without laying off city employees. Recently, in Lawrence, Indiana, the city began contracting out their trash collection department. The company contracted by the city hired every employee that worked for the city‘s trash collection department, doubled the salary of half the employees, and significantly increased their benefits package. 
The best part is the company charges the city hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the city spent on trash collection. Private businesses operate better and more efficiently than government.

Brian Patterson: First of all, I am eager to see the latest CAFR report (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) in order to get a definitive answer on the current status of our UAALs (Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liabilities). I have received conflicting information on what that amount is, so it’s difficult to answer with complete confidence. Whatever the amount is will determine how aggressively we should cut spending in order to deal with our debt and liabilities.
Assuming that the UAALs don’t pose an immediate threat, we can reign in spending in a few ways. First, we must do a better job of prioritizing spending. We don’t need to be building $23 million parks, $105 million Greenway extensions, or $3 million tennis courts while we are a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. (All of those things we are currently committed to undertake). I don’t mean to pick on Parks and Rec, but that department is currently our fourth largest annual expense, and is on pace to overtake our Fire Department as the third largest budget item. We must remember, parks are a luxury item, and they should be prioritized as such.
Second, I would like to see us incentivize savings within our City staff. We should be offering performance bonuses for department heads who are able to come in under their projected budgets. Bonuses could be distributed by those department heads to their staff as they see fit. This could provide a two-fold benefit, monetary savings as well as providing a tangible criteria for the, often debated, performance based raises for City employees.
Third, I feel it’s time we explore the possibility of privatizing some of our services. If we allow private businesses, as well as city employees, to bid on contracts for some of our non-essential services, I am confident we can find some savings. Again, I am not opposed to city operated services, but by introducing a competitive bidding process, we can undoubtedly increase efficiency and lower costs.


4. On top of the debt, for the past two years, the City has operated with a deficit of around $4.9 million/year. Would you support or oppose a requirement that each future budget be balanced; that is to say, deficits will not be allowed except perhaps for extraordinary circumstances?

Axl David: With our current debt approaching $250 million, any deficit spending is unacceptable. I would support a requirement that future budgets be balanced, with reducing our debt being a priority.

Brian Patterson: Assuming “extraordinary circumstances” could be defined adequately, yes I would. Anytime we consider measures such as this, we are forced to acknowledge a “never-say-never” possibility. With that in mind, I would have to be satisfied that the “extraordinary circumstances” would provide us with the flexibility needed to deal with a real crisis. I would never want to put our City in position to be hurt by rigid bureaucracy.


5. The City receives millions in state and federal grants each year for our schools. It is a well-established fact that under current conditions the City cannot build new schools without large amounts of grants, loans, and additional debt. Do you feel this is acceptable and what could we do to put us in a position to better pay for new schools?

Axl David: Of course I don’t feel it’s ideal for the City to borrow money. Unfortunately with schools, there are so many factors far outside of the City’s control. Borrowing, and accepting grants, for schools in today’s climate are often a necessary and uncontrollable evil.
The City could mitigate some of the damage by prioritizing the Murfreesboro City Schools budget over departments such as Parks and Recreation, and working with the elected school board members. 

Brian Patterson: Again, prioritizing spending would be a great place to start. Most everyone would agree that schools should be a higher priority than Parks and Rec, yet in FY2013 Murfreesboro spent over twice as much on its P&R department than on its own schools. Based on our projected growth, new school construction will be an ongoing need. Knowing that, we would be wise to budget accordingly. I don’t want to see us dependent on state and federal funds for our own schools, as those funds often come with “strings attached”.


6. In 2013, the City approved a 25-year “Master Plan” to expand the Greenway system well beyond City limits. To achieve this, the City will engage in wide-spread eminent domain. Is the use of eminent domain an appropriate use of government force for the building of recreational facilities?

Axl David: I believe the Master Plan was designed assuming that the City will have annexed most of the land within the Urban Growth Boundary within 25 years. Eminent domain for any reason, especially for recreational purposes, is unacceptable and I adamantly oppose it.
Master Plans, by design, are often planned assuming the best case scenario lasting for the next 25-100 years. They are often lofty because of negative externalities anticipated; such as a recession, population loss, etc. It is important to note that Master Plans are not legally binding in any way and City officials should be flexible as economic conditions dictate.

Brian Patterson: Absolutely not. Recreational facilities are luxury items. Private property rights should not be violated for such non-essential projects. Eminent domain was intended to be used in limited circumstances for critical infrastructure. If elected, I will passionately defend property rights. In my view, the concept of private property is fundamental to the American way of life.


7. The City spends around $13 million each year on parks, recreational facilities, and golf courses. This makes recreation the 3rd largest budget item for the entire City government. The City also spends hundreds of thousands, split between two departments, simply to manage Civic Plaza and the parking garage. Cities across the nation, like Sandy Springs, Georgia, have begun privatizing non-essential services or entering into private-public partnerships in an attempt to save tax payer’s money and increase the quality of the services provided. Do you think we should take a serious look at finding new ways to do business, like privatizing a limited number of services, or do think that we should continue along our current path?

Axl David: As explained earlier, I do believe in privatizing some non-essential city services, only if it can be accomplished without laying off city employees.
Sandy Springs, Georgia is an affluent bedroom community to Atlanta, with a median income average almost twice that of Murfreesboro. Although it could be a model for some privatization of non-essential services, there are significant differences between the cities that should be taken into consideration. 

Brian Patterson: As I stated in a previous answer, I do think it’s time we begin a bidding process for city services. I want to emphasize that I want to see the City’s current departments get the opportunity to enter bids along with private businesses. Competition is a good thing, and it is the best way to make services more efficient and lower the cost to taxpayers. 
One thing to note in the Sandy Springs, GA comparison, that city was basically starting from scratch in building its governance. Obviously, we are in a different situation, so I think the best way to approach it would be to systematically work our way up the ladder from smaller services to larger ones. This would allow us to experiment with the process, and provide quantitative feedback on its effectiveness.


8. Murfreesboro has grown at an astounding rate over the past few decades. Would you be in favor of implementing district representation for Council seats?

Axl David: I believe in a mixed-system with district representation, while still maintaining some at-large seats. Murfreesboro has grown at an astronomical rate, and has maintained a lot of diversity with several unique neighborhoods. A city as large and diverse as Murfreesboro needs district representation.
One downfall of district representation is there tends to be more tension and vote-trading among representatives of different districts. This is why I believe there should still be limited at-large representation.

Brian Patterson: Yes. I think it is time for a hybrid system of district seats and at large seats. We are blessed to live in a dynamic city that has enjoyed tremendous growth over the past decade, both in population and in commercial development.  Because of this, different parts of our city now face diverse needs and challenges. Certain parts of the city might be facing traffic issues and re-zoning efforts. While others may be struggling with a higher crime rate and a lack of sidewalks. All of these concerns are valid and should be addressed by city government. These areas need representation from their own neighborhoods.  
It stands to reason, our City Council should be made up of representatives from different parts of the city. This is how government is structured at the county, state, and federal levels. It is a fundamental part of a representative democracy. Unfortunately, as it stands now, all Council seats are elected “at large”. While that may have been effective when our town had a population of 30,000 people, it is certainly not the best way to represent a city of over 110,000.
Amending our city charter to mandate district representation is vital to assuring that the people of Murfreesboro get the representation they deserve.


9. Currently, citizens are only permitted to voice their concerns directly and personally to the full City Council during public hearings, and only if their concerns are related to the subject of the hearing. Do you support or oppose opening up a portion of each Council meeting to the general public to allow citizens to address the Council for any concern they may have? 

Axl David: The first time I went to a Murfreesboro City Council meeting, I had intended to use the Public Forum to address my concerns with the City’s red light camera program. I left shocked that the City does not allow this, as it is commonplace at nearly every city and county meeting in the country. Refusing to listen to the citizens is anathema to a functional elected body. 
I fully support having a Public Forum at the council meetings because the very foundation of an elected City Council is to listen and represent the citizens. The City should also arrange a way for residents to submit recorded statements if they are unable to attend City Council meetings due to a disability or other extenuating circumstances.

Brian Patterson: Yes! The first job of a council member, is to serve the taxpayer. In essence, it is an employer/employee relationship. With that in mind, how can a council member justify not allowing their boss to address them? I would love to see a public comment section at the end of every council meeting. It should be open-ended, with each speaker allowed three minutes to address the council.  


10. What are your thoughts on entering into a “metro” form of government with the County?

Axl David: I oppose any kind of consolidated city-county government with Murfreesboro or Rutherford County. I have heard no compelling evidence that this type of arrangement is beneficial or desired by residents either within the city limits or in the rural areas of the county.

Brian Patterson: I am against it. I've heard the “efficiency” argument from advocates of metro, and I understand their views. The problem is, larger governments never operate more efficiently. Whatever administrative costs they initially save, they more than squander in bloated bureaucracy as time progresses. I firmly believe that the more local the government, the better.

Below, is the contact information each candidate has provided.

Axl David:
Campaign website: http://www.ElectAxl.com 
Contact E-mail: ded3b@mtmail.mtsu.edu 
Phone number: (615) 442-6767


Brian Patterson:
Campaign website:  BrianforMurfreesboro.com
Contact E-mail:  Brian@BrianforMurfreesboro.com
Phone number: (615)533-6641
Twitter: @BPintheboro

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

A Review of the 2013-2014 Murfreesboro City Budget


This review is similar my review of last year’sbudget except that I go into greater detail and try to give a more comprehensive look at the budget. As with last year’s review, these numbers are solely for informative purposes. I have tried to distill a 294 page budget into a short and meaningful review to enable the general public to see the primary figures. Any perceived bias for or against any department is just that, perceived. Due to the fact that personnel costs are by far the largest single expenditure, I feel it’s important to focus more attention on those figures. The only sector of City government I personally take issue with is the “recreational” sector which spends tens of millions on public leisure while we continue to go deeper into debt and lack the ability to even build a school without substantial federal grants.

This review prints out at 12 pages in Microsoft Word. If you would like a PDF copy please contact me via Facebook (link is at the very bottom) and I will gladly send you one. 

Background
Each fiscal year begins on July 1. This review is for FY 2014.
Rutherford County had been ranked third in the nation for employment growth in 2012, by 2013 the Bureau of Labor Statistics upgraded the ranking to second in the country for employment growth. Murfreesboro’s population has risen 58% since 2000, however population growth has slowed for the last two published years. [pgs. 23, 25] For recent years, an annual population growth figure of 5% per year should be used to determine if certain figures (like number of citations issued) fall within expected ranges.

The main concerns for the City are its debt, how to accurately predict growth, and how to plan for the future while national trends are still unstable. The City’s population growth exceeds the national average by 200% and has been among the fastest growing cities in the nation for many years. The problem I see is that the City government expects our growth to continue at this pace indefinitely which has the potential for putting our economic foundation in grave danger. Detroit underwent a similar period of growth for decades and then collapsed, we must avoid this.

For the purposes of taxation, the property valuation within the City (real property, personal property, etc.) is assessed at $2,780,591,800. This is a decrease of 1.15% since last year. [pg. 269]

Select list of future plans in budget
Questionable
Initiate planning for a park in west Murfreesboro
Beginning construction of the Stones River Greenway extension to Barfield Crescent Park
Contributing to MTSU’s Science Building
Building an indoor tennis complex in conjunction with MTSU
Fund pay increases and longevity pay for full-time personnel
Opening a golf teaching facility for youth

Positive
Retrofitting traffic signals from incandescent bulbs to LEDs
Installing GPS units on Rover buses and solid waste vehicles
Updating downtown parking fine schedule
Funding for new police vehicles
Replace elevator at Linebaugh Library

Neutral
Renovating Sports*Com, Patterson Park, McFadden Community Center, McKnight Park, and Oakland Park
Drafting a Parks and Recreation Master Plan

Revenues
General Fund revenues total $113.37 million, reflecting a 1% increase over last year. It should be noted that revenues have still not returned to the level seen in FY 2009. The 2012-13 budget posted a 2.63% revenue increase. [pg. 14]



Property tax
For the 15th year in a row, the City has decided not to increase the property tax rate. Despite population growth, revenues from property taxes will decrease $414,000 from FY 2013 and the amount projected to be collected in FY 2014 will be the smallest since FY 2010. From FY 2011 to FY 2014 property tax revenues will have increased a mere 1.1%. [pg. 14]



Sales tax
Sales taxes have been increased each year since FY 2010. For FY 2014 revenue from sales taxes are expected to rise 3.6%, or $1.5 million. From FY 2011 to FY 2014 sale tax revenues has increased 13.8%. [pg. 15]



Expenditures
The total General Fund expenditures are $118.22 million, an increase of 0.76% over FY 2013. This means another year of deficit spending. $4.85 million in deficit spending to be exact. This is slightly less than the $4.95 million in deficit spending last year. [pgs. 15-16]

New debt
The City plans to issue $25 million in new debt this year.

Healthcare [pg. 17]
The City experienced a 100% increase in large claims over FY 2012, raising claims paid by $690,000. Medical inflation on other claims is expected to increase by 7% for FY 2013 and for FY 2014, insurance premiums will increase approx. 16% over last year.

Pay increases [pgs. 21-22]
The City conducted a study based on “market rate” compensation plans for similar positions around the country. A review of the study yielded 3 possibilities for pay increases.
Option 1: Adjust each pay grade by 1.7%. This cost (including FICA and retirement) would equal $685,135
Option 2: Do not change pay steps, but employees move one pay step. Topped out employees would not receive an increase. This option would result in a 3.5% increase and cost $1.18 million
Option 3: Drops one step and add a new top step. Employees would move one step (3.5% increase in pay) and would cost $1.4 million
The City opted to go with option 3, an annual pay increase of $1.4 million.

General Fund Overview [pg. 40]

Revenues have risen 11.5% since 2010-2011. Revenues for FY 2014 are $113,365,751. Revenues from 2010 to FY 2014 equaled $432,497,327.
The City’s revenue stream includes around $410,000 from the County (mostly from hotel tax and for senior citizens), $11.5 million from the State (mostly from sales taxes and TVA tax), and $4.6 million from the Federal government, of that $3,074,000 is from Greenway grants. In total, for 2014 the City expects intergovernmental revenues of $16,459,569, an increase of $2,370,682 over last year.

Charges for Services (fees paid to use facilities etc.) equal $4.7 million for General Fund revenues. Approx. 31% ($1,457,000) comes from the Recreation Dept. and 42% ($1,974,000) comes from the Public Golf Courses. [pg. 56]

Expenditures have increased 15.2% over the same time period.
Expenditures from 2010 to FY 2014 equaled $435,096,790. FY 2012 was the only year in which actual expenditures were less than revenue. For FY 2013 and FY 2014, expenditures created a combined deficit of $6.12 million.

Personnel costs account for 48% of the budget, by far the largest single type of expenditure while total operating costs equal 19% of overall expenditures. [pg. 62]

Here are the net increases/decreases for each department’s budget from FY 2010 to FY 2014. [FY 2013 budget pg. 41, FY 2014 budget pg. 40]

                           FY 2010            FY 2014               Change
Revenue        $108,762,133       $113,365,751        + 4.23%
Expenditures $106,512,355       $118,220,559        +11%
 


General Administration    – 4.47%              Information Technology (begins 2011/12)   +82.63%
Communications    +72%                           Legal   +18.9%
Human Resources    +41.3%                     Judicial    +30.2%
Police    +24.47%                                     Fire    +17.8%
Building & Codes   +6.38%                      *Planning & Engineering    - 47%
Transportation    -6.7%                             Street   +42.5%
Urban Environmental    +22.32%              Civic Plaza    +24%
Parking Garage    +67.64%                      Recreation    +57.53%
Senior Citizens   +5.47%                          Golf Courses   +19.2%
Solid waste    - 10%                                 Public Health & Welfare   +5.5%
Departmental Transfers    - 11.37%          Misc.   + 64.6%
* In FY 2014 the Engineering segment of was splIt off to become its own department.

Departmental Reviews
NOTES
Some minor funds will not be described below, however, any departments and funds with employees will be.
The average total personnel cost (real salary plus benefits) per employee figure is derived by taking the total amount of employee payments and dividing it by the total number of employees (including part-time employees). Thus, the figure is only meant to give a general idea of the amount each employee is getting, obviously some will make more and others much less than this average figure. Averages for departments with a majority part-time workforce will only include salaries/wages, all others will include benefits in the overall average pay per employee.

Benefits include, Social Security, medical & dental insurance, pension plan, retirement, life insurance, and workers’ compensation.

Comparisons of personnel cost increases or decreases are only done for departments which have only had minimal changes in their total employee number. The average cost increase equals less than a $0.75 raise per hour per employee each year, although variations do exist.

     General Administration [pgs. 67-71] – $4,339,331 total budget with 33 total employees (5 part-time). Salaries & wages are $1,412,574 with an additional $553,776 in benefits for a total of $1,966,350. This equals $59,586/employee. Personnel costs equals 45% of the Department’s budget.

     Information Technology Dept. [pgs. 76-77] – $1,520,665 total budget with 12 employees (1 part-time). Total salaries & wages equal $595,122 with an additional $220,293 in benefits for a total of $815,415 in personnel costs. This equals $67,951/employee. Personnel costs grew 29% since FY 2011 while only adding one employee, a “help desk support specialist.” Personnel costs equal 53.5% of the Department’s budget.

     Communications Dept. [pgs. 80-83] – $728,851 total budget with 8 employees (2 part-time). Salaries & wages are $387,568 plus $144,880 in benefits for a total of $532,488 in personnel costs. This comes to $66,556/employee. Personnel costs equal 73% of the Department’s budget.

     Legal Dept. [pgs. 86-88] – $810,292 total budget with 7 employees. Salaries & wages are $548,825 plus $188,567 in benefits for a total of $737,392 in personnel costs. This comes to $105,341/employee. Personnel costs equal 91% of the Department’s budget.

     Human Resources Dept. [pgs. 91-93] – $914,210 total budget with 9 employees. Salaries & wages are $471,022 plus $199,648 in benefits for a total of $670,670 in personnel costs. This comes to $74,518/employee. Personnel costs have actually decreased 7.6% since FY 2011 without any changes in total personnel numbers.  Personnel costs equal 73.3% of the Department’s budget.

Drug screening costs (this would be the total cost for all potential City employees) came to $47,500 and advertising costs were $5,000. Miscellaneous expenses (which includes drug screenings, surveys, testing etc.) have nearly doubled since FY 2011, growing from $89,899 to $175,500.

     Judicial Dept. [pgs. 95-97] – $458,006 total budget with 6 employees. Salaries & wages are $254,869 plus $124,962 in benefits for a total of $379,831 in personnel costs. This comes to $63,305/employee. Without any gain/loss of employees, the personnel budget has increased 12.8% since FY 2011. Personnel costs equal nearly 82% of the Department’s budget.

Court fines receivable are expected to be below FY 2013 levels at $3,500,000 and the department is expected to process 80,000 citations (which is up from 57,000 in FY 2011).

     Police Dept. [pgs. 102-106] – $25,111,237 total budget with 316 employees (34 part-time). Salaries & wages equal $14,082,012 plus $6,262,418 in benefits for a total of $20,344,430 in personnel costs. This comes to $63,775/employee. Total personnel costs have risen 11.9% since FY 2011 despite there being 1 less employee compared to then. Salaries & wages by themselves grew 12.6%. Personnel costs equal 79.3% of the Department’s budget.

Selected numbers on Police operations/performance expected for FY 2014 and compared to FY 2011:

Total calls received 265,000 (40,000 are 911 calls) - this is an increase of 42.7% (a 2% increase in 911 calls).

Total number of crashes 4,903 (an increase of 10.1%), fatal crashes have fluctuated but the overall trend is a decline with between 3-4 fatalities likely in FY 2014, compared to 6 in FY 2011.

Number of arrests are expected to reach 9,000, an increase of 13.3%.

Traffic citations grew between 2011 and 2013, however they are expected to fall this year and from FY 2011 to FY 2014 the rate is a net increase of 18.4%.

Automated Red Light Citations are expected to have grown 93%.

K-9 deployments are expected to have risen 142%.

Overall, with the exception of automated citations and K-9 deployments, the rate of increases fit within the expected ranges given population growth.   

     Fire & Rescue Dept. [pgs. 111-115] – $15,686,801 total budget with 189 employees (2 part-time). Salaries & wages are $9,711,006 with $4,490,504 in benefits for a total of $14,201,510 in personnel costs. This equals $75,140/employee. Total personnel costs have risen 13.6% with 2 fewer employees than in FY 2011. However, when considering only wages, those have increased just 8.7%. Personnel costs equal 89.5% of the Department’s budget.

Selected numbers on Fire & Rescue operations/performance expected for FY 2014 and compared to FY 2011:

Expected number of emergency calls for FY 2014 are 7,900, a sharp decrease of 27.6%. I’m not sure how they arrived at this figure since the FY 2013 estimates for that year were 10,419.

Number of fire per 1,000 population are unchanged from FY 2011.

Estimated property saved from fire is down 23.8% (again, based on a decrease in expected fire calls).

Response times and the percentage of property saved from a fire has remained relatively stable over the years.

     Building & Codes [pgs. 116-121] – $1,808,556 total budget with 23 employees (1 part-time).
Salaries & wages are $1,198,583 plus $453,379 in benefits which comes to $1,651,962 in personnel costs. This equals $71,824/employee. Personnel costs are 91.1% of the Department’s total budget.

An interesting figure, for 2012 new residential construction was valued at $378 million, an increase of nearly $176 million over 2011.

     Planning Dept. [pgs. 125-127] – $904,000 total budget with 7 employees. Salaries & wages are $444,928 with $164,272 in benefits which comes to $609,200 in personnel costs. This comes to $87,028/employee and makes up 67.3% of the Department’s budget.

The department’s productivity (number of items within their workload such as public hearings, studies, plan reviews etc.) for FY 2014 is expected to reach 988 items, an increase of 21% since FY 2011. The number of annexation studies grew from 1 in 2011 to 10 for 2014.

Advertising costs for the department are expected to be $18,000 and surveys & studies comes to $210,000.

     Engineering Division [pg. 136] – Full budget is not currently available since the division is new. About $300,000 of the Division’s personnel cost is funded by the storm water user fee.

     Transportation Dept. [pgs. 128-134] – $2,925,361 total budget with 27 employees (9 part-time). Salaries & wages are $938,369 with an additional $335,937 in benefits for a total of $1,274,306 in personnel costs. This comes to $47,196/employee. Personnel costs equal 27% of the Department’s budget. 

The City operates 137 signalized intersections. Public transportation operations funding for local and regional transportation services is between the Federal Trans. Administration, TDOT, and the City. Operations funding is generally split on a 50% federal, 25% state, and 25% local cost basis. Capital finding is split 80% federal, 10% state, and 10% local.

The Rover Bus system has seen continual growth with ridership numbers reaching around 265,000 in 2013, an increase of about 130% since 2008. In January 2011, I estimated that the Rover system had an additional $2 million economic beneficial impact on our local economy. Based solely on ridership, that number would be $2.6 million today.

     Street Division [pgs. 141-145] – $5,492,934 total budget with 39 employees (1 part-time). Salaries & wages are $1,848,033 with an added $823,460 in benefits which comes to $2,671,493 in personnel costs. This equals $68,499/employee. Personnel costs equals 48.6% of the Division’s budget.

The City Council instructed the Street Division to implement a 20-year plan for repaving City streets. Currently, the Division oversees 593 linear miles of City streets and State routes and installed 501 regulatory street signs for 2013. For FY 2014, the Division expects to resurface 56 miles of road, install or repair 700 signs, and collect roughly 1.7 million pounds of leaves & yard waste which would otherwise have been sent to the landfill.

     Urban Environmental Dept. [pgs. 147-151] – $1,112,211 total budget with 15 employees. Salaries & wages are $546,168 with an added $311,093 in benefits for a total of $857,261 in personnel costs. This comes to $57,150/employee. Personnel costs equal 77% of the Department’s budget. Personnel costs increased 16.7% since FY 2011 with no changes in the total number of employees.

This department is responsible for the overall “beauty” of the City which includes landscaping and other primarily arboricultural projects. Within the department is 50 City owned properties and 2.2 million square feet of turf and landscaped areas.

For FY 2014 an estimated 6 trees will be replaced downtown, 2 City TV episodes will be created, and 2 tree appreciation program events held.

     Civic Plaza [pgs. 152-154] – $104,600 total budget with 1 employee. Salaries & wages are $27,625 with an added $9,326 in benefits which comes to $36,951 in total personnel costs. Personnel costs have actually fallen 17.5% since FY 2011, this is mainly due to a decrease in medical & dental insurance costs. Personnel costs equal 35.3% of the Department’s total budget.

Since Rutherford County owns a portion of the plaza the maintenance costs are shared, 58.5% City and 41.5% County. The plaza fountain will cost $1,200 this year and $7,500 is budgeted to be spent on landscaping/hardscaping. 

     Parking Garage [pgs. 155-157] – $184,487 total budget, no employees.
The parking garage (under Civic Plaza, City Hall and the library) is also jointly funded with 68.5% coming from the City and 31.5% County. Some elevators are planned to be replaced at an expense of $67,000. Electricity costs comprise the bulk of expenditures and will be $106,000 this year. Sweeping costs are $5,400.

     Parks & Rec Dept. [pgs. 158-169] – $11,712,749 total budget with 326 employees (256 part-time). Salaries & wages are $4,341,750 with an added $1,466,872 in benefits for a total of $5,805,622 in personnel costs. Salaries and wages comes to $37,666 per full-time employee and $6,660 per part-time employee. Total personnel costs equal 49.3% of the Department’s budget.

Total revenues from all sources (fees, rentals, grants etc.) are $4,791,650.

Parks & Rec maintains approx. 1,115 acres worth of parks and greenways and $150 million in assets which includes 28 sites and 74 buildings. According to the budget, the tournaments held in Murfreesboro which use public facilities have an estimated economic impact of $27 million/year. The budget also lists “financial assistance” as $415,000, but I’m unsure as to what that entails.

The 11.6 miles of Greenways detailed in the budget amounts to a cost of $1.88 million per mile to build ($21.8 million total). Of that cost, 76% came from grants, 20.9% from the City, and 0.47% from donations.
Utility costs are $1,026,325. For FY 2014 the administrative office purchased 24 new computers at a cost of $20,400. Additional exercise equipment, chairs, computers, TVs etc. came to $559,566.

     Senior Citizens Dept. [pgs. 174-175] – $928,892 total budget with 18 employees (9 part-time). Salaries & wages are $432,897 with an added $162,374 in benefits which comes to $595,271 in personnel costs. This equals $33,070/employee and personnel costs make up 64% of the Department’s budget.

The Department brings in $140,100 in revenues from grants, programs, and fees.

     Public Golf Course Dept. [pgs. 180-187] – $2,061,436 total budget with 55 employees (41 part-time). Salaries & wages are $924,060 ($265,477 is for part-time employees), with an added $339,785 in benefits which comes to $1,263,845 in personnel costs. This equals $47,041 in salaries per full-time employee and $6,475 in wages per part-time employee. Total personnel costs equals 61.3% of the Department’s budget.

An estimated 64,000 paid rounds of golf will be played at the Old Fort and VA golf courses (combined). Revenues from concessions and merchandise are expected to bring in $408,000

     Solid Waste Dept. [pgs. 189-192] – $4,579,852 total budget with 42 employees (1 part-time). Salaries & wages are $1,543,793 plus an added $910,102 in benefits for a total of $2,453,895 in personnel costs. This equals $58,426/employee and personnel costs comprise 53.5% of the Department’s budget.

The Department services 42,000 households and 6,000 businesses and for FY 2013 disposed of or mulched 61,339 tons of garbage and brush.

     Health, Education and Welfare Dept. [pgs. 194-196] – $2,135,939 total budget with zero employees.
Funding for the Public Library system is divided on a 44% City and 56% County basis. $751,974 comes from this department to fund Linebaugh Library and $333,333 is going to help fund MTSU’s new science building. Tourist oriented expenses come to $470,500.

     Fund Transfers [pg.197] – These transfers are movements of funds between City departments. The total for FY 2014 is $31,957,366 with $27,067,263 going to Debt Service, $4,810,103 to City Schools, and $80,000 to the Drug Fund. There are no department employees.

     Debt Service Fund [pgs. 203-211] – $31,271,821 in expenditures with $5,038,313 in interest payments.

The City’s credit rating is unchanged from last year. S&P gave the City a rating of AA- in 2012 and Aa2 by Moody’s in 2009. The City continues to expect a 91% principle debt pay-off in 10 years. The City has a debt limit of $417,088,770 and our debt equals 57.91% of that limit.

The City anticipates issuing $24 million in new debt (fixed rate), part of which will help pay for the new west-side school.



     Street Aid Fund [pgs. 213-215] – $2,800,350 total budget with no employees. $2,800,000 comes from the State Fuel Tax allocation and this fund is used to maintain streets within the City limits.

     Airport Fund [pgs.216-221] – $6,120,284 total budget with 7 employees (6 part-time). Salaries & wages are $157,731 with an added $42,201 in benefits for a total of $199,932 in personnel costs. This comes to $28,561/employee and personnel costs equals 3.2% of the Fund’s total budget.

The City estimates the economic benefit of the airport at $70 million annually. Revenues equal $6,120,284 which makes the airport self-sufficient from the point of view of the City. However, $4,687,250 comes from federal grants (76.4% of total revenue).

     Drug Fund [pgs. 224-225] – $293,650 total budget with $150,000 in personnel costs. The Drug Fund reimburses the General Fund for overtime expenses incurred by Vice officers.
Of the total budget, $80,000 comes from property seizures and a further $160,000 comes from court fines.

     Community Development Fund [pgs. 226-230] – $1,064,028 total budget with 3 employees (1 part-time). Salaries & wages are $73,049 plus an added $57,130 in benefits which comes to $130,179 in total personnel costs. This equals $43,393/employee and personnel costs are 12.2% of the Fund’s total budget.

The Fund is used for affordable housing, social services, and improvements and economic development. Funding is appropriated by Congress via HUD. This fund is fully paid for by grants and income generated by the programs.

     Risk Management Fund [pgs. 246-247] – $3,905,049 total budget with 3 employees. Salaries & wages are $221,831 with an added $65,865 in benefits for a total of $287,696 in personnel costs. This comes to $95,898/employee and personnel costs equals 7.3% of the Fund’s budget.

The largest expenditures are insurance claim related which will be $2,914,781.

     Fleet Services [pgs. 249-251] – $2,364,105 total budget with 13 employees. Salaries & wages are $628,846 with an added $304,066 in benefits which totals $932,912 in personnel costs. This equals $71,762/employee and personnel costs are 39.4% of the Department’s total budget.
The Department manages 731 vehicles and rolling stock.

Job Classification & Compensation Plan
From budget pages 286-292.

The City has 790 employees, an increase of 3 from last year. Total personnel costs equal $56,867,852 which is an increase of 2.3% over last year. Simply using the number of employees and total personnel costs, the average pay per employee would be $71,984 (benefits included).


The City’s compensation plan is divided into nine steps, with Step 1 being the lowest. The top pay grade is the City Manager at $169,591/yr (at maximum level), and the lowest is $21,000/yr for the night watchman in the Solid Waste Dept. (entry level). 

Source:

-- Jacob Bogle