BRADY FLANIGANStaff Writer

On Feb. 24, Tullahoma Area Economic Development Corporation (TAEDC) Chair Col. Beverly Lee U.S. Air Force (ret.) presented the Arnold Heritage and Innovation Center (AHIC) project to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen—an idea for a 24,000 square foot, $12.5 million facility located in Waggoner Park that would serve as a hub for STEM education, entrepreneurship, workforce development, and heritage tourism in Tullahoma. 

The floor plan would require the relocation of sports fields and equipment to the tune of $3.45 million. Public opposition followed at a March 10 board meeting, where several residents raised concerns about the project’s cost, land use, and the availability of alternative sites. Many opponents voiced concern over the cultural impact of moving the town’s long-standing youth sports fields and the disruption it might cause to local sports traditions. Following the public backlash, the Waggoner Park location was withdrawn. 

Coverage of the events prompted much public attention, and on March 23 The News received several letters to the editor regarding the AHIC project. One was from Col. Lee herself, affirming that AHIC was “never intended to displace any sports fields” and “what remains unchanged is the need for a facility that fosters innovation, workforce development, and economic resilience in the region.” 

Another letter requested The News do a detailed analysis of the project’s estimated costs, goals, and overall economic feasibility. In response, The News reached out to Col. Lee with several pages of questions aimed at clarifying AHIC’s financial and logistical feasibility.

TAEDC is a government-affiliated corporation chartered by the City of Tullahoma, composed of members appointed by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen with the objective of promoting local economic development. The News’ questions were designed to clarify information gaps about the feasibility of Col. Lee’s proposal and what impacts it might have on Tullahoma’s citizens. Despite multiple follow-ups, The News received only a brief statement from Col. Lee: 

Thank you for printing my letter to the editor last week. Although I feel my letter was sufficient to allay the misrepresentations of the project, I ask that you accept this statement from me for any additional information at this time.

‘The Arnold Heritage and Innovation Center has always been a vision to support innovation, education, workforce development, and economic growth in the region. While the original location is no longer under consideration, new locations are being explored that align with those goals. Each option presents unique factors, so all funding estimates and program details are being re-evaluated accordingly. We remain focused on thoughtful planning and meaningful partnerships—and have no further updates to share at this time.’”

Given the lack of clarification surrounding the estimates Col. Lee provided, The News was forced to conduct its own feasibility study using the data Col. Lee provided to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen on Feb. 24, combined with the supplemental material provided to The News following an interview conducted on March 3. 

While Lee has emphasized that “all funding estimates and program details are being re-evaluated,” the review uncovered several abnormalities with the project’s core methodology. What follows is an analysis based on the AHIC’s most up-to-date estimates.

Capital Requirements and Funding Targets

On Feb. 24 Col. Lee estimated AHIC’s capital costs to be $12.5 million to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. When asked about the origins of these figures, perhaps through an auditing company for example, Lee stated, “basically, myself and a couple other folks ballparked those figures.” 

Of that amount, $11.5 million was designed to be funded through grants. The remaining $1 million was to be raised through private fundraising. Some of the potential sources Lee cited included the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), and Launch Tennessee (LaunchTN). In terms of potential grantors, she noted that “we have a general idea of who would do what,” but no specific allocation strategy was given. No details regarding possible sources for the $1 million in private contributions were provided to the board or The News.

With Waggoner Park off the table, it’s possible AHIC might need to lease or purchase private land, adding a new cost not reflected in Lee’s original estimates. According to real estate data from Realtor.com, the average listing price per acre in Coffee County is approximately $25,000 to $40,000 depending on location and zoning. A five-to-ten acre site suitable for development could therefore cost between $125,000 and $400,000, excluding site preparation, utility installation, or environmental assessments.  

This change may also affect eligibility for grants. According to the National League of Cities, over 85% of successful municipal grant applications for federal infrastructure or innovation centers include pre-secured, publicly controlled land. Without a publicly owned site, AHIC may not meet basic eligibility requirements for grants it depends on to fund over 90% of its capital budget.

Using national construction cost benchmarks from RSMeans, a standard commercial construction estimate for a modern educational or community center with light industrial elements ranges from $400 to $500 per square foot. At 24,000 square feet, the projected construction cost would range from $9.6 million to $12 million—placing Lee’s $12.5 million projection on the upper end. However, this estimate does not account for the additional outdoor facilities proposed in AHIC’s project at Waggoner Park, which included an outdoor amphitheater and a walking path. 

It is also unclear if Lee’s estimates reflected the cost of the high-tech elements she has discussed being inside AHIC—including holographic exhibits, glass-separated maker labs, and light manufacturing tools—which often exceed $100,000 or more per exhibit and compound when considering maintenance and staffing. 

On the whole, AHIC’s capital strategy relies on speculative contributions from multiple grantmaking bodies, unconfirmed philanthropic support, and eligibility assumptions that may no longer apply given the uncertainty around location. The absence of a finalized site, associated development costs, third-party cost verification, or confirmed financial backers makes it difficult to confirm the realism of the $12.5 million estimate—or the project’s readiness to compete for public investment.

Operating Budget and Annual Deficit

Col. Lee estimated AHIC’s “bare bones operational expenses” to be $529,300 annually, implying costs could be higher. At the same time “low estimate” revenue was evaluated at $319,475. This would produce a $272,825 deficit needing to be filled annually by grants, sponsors, donors, or perhaps even the city, to keep AHIC operational year-to-year.

Lee described the $319,475 revenue estimate as “very low,” noting AHIC could generate significantly more through additional support from LaunchTN—a state-backed nonprofit that funds regional entrepreneurship centers—tourism, DoD partnerships, events, a café, a gift shop, and more. However, Launch Tennessee confirmed to The News that while Col. Lee had presented the project to them, AHIC has not submitted any funding request or proposal, and the project remains in what LaunchTN described as the “incubation phase.”

A comparison to Tullahoma’s Hands-On Science Center (HOSC) raises doubts about just how modest these revenue projections really are. HOSC is a local nonprofit offering STEM programs and exhibits similar to what AHIC might. In 2023, it reported its highest-ever revenue at $336,331, according to IRS filings compiled by ProPublica. The “very low” revenue estimates Lee described are only ~5% lower than that figure—raising questions about the accuracy of the AHIC projections. 

Moreover, operating two STEM-focused education centers in a city of just over 21,000 people could create direct market competition. This may reduce revenue by saturating demand or splitting the visitor base. While Lee has indicated a desire to keep costs low for visitors—saying she did not want to charge residents $25 per ticket—lower admission prices reduce per capita income, limiting the project’s ability to close the gap through direct user fees.

In short, the operating budget rests on optimistic assumptions about both public interest and external support. With no formal revenue commitments and a comparable nonprofit in the same market operating on a similarly modest budget, the likelihood of covering the projected shortfall appears low.

Projected Use and Growth

Col. Lee projected that AHIC would attract 12,000 visitors in its first year, 18,000 in its second, and 25,000 by its third. Other projections stated it would serve 500 “underrepresented entrepreneurs” in year one, scaling to 1,500 by year three; host 60 events per year and 25 large-scale gatherings; raise $300,000 in year one, $1 million in year two, and $2 million or more in year three; and create 30 jobs its first year, rising to 150 by year three.

The Knoxville Entrepreneur Center (KEC)—an established regional accelerator serving a metro area nearly ten times the size of Tullahoma—reported working with 1,256 entrepreneurs in total between 2013 and 2022. For AHIC to reach 1,500 entrepreneurs within just three years would mean outpacing the nine-year cumulative output of KEC. That level of projected reach, absent a formal needs assessment or demand study, appears deeply unrealistic when benchmarked against regional norms. 

AHIC’s visitor projections are similarly inflated. Visitorship targets significantly outpace what has been achieved locally. The Hands-On Science Center (HOSC), a STEM-based nonprofit serving Tullahoma attracted approximately 17,000 visitors during its most successful year. AHIC’s target of 25,000 by year three would require capturing well over 100% of Tullahoma’s population annually and outpace a long-established institution. Nationally, small-town museums average between 4,000 and 12,000 visitors per year, according to the American Alliance of Museums.

The shift from 12,000 to 25,000 visitors in three years implies a compound annual growth rate of ~44%—far exceeding norms. By comparison, market research group IBISWorld estimates the compound annual growth rate of the U.S. museum industry was 0.8% between 2019 and 2024. Even sites that underwent major expansions rarely sustained more than 25% growth before leveling off. No demand study, baseline analysis, or third-party report was cited to support a 44% growth rate.

Lee projected AHIC would generate 30 jobs in its inaugural year, 75 in its second, and 150 jobs by its third year. She did not specify how many jobs the center would directly employ, but based on similar facilities with a comparable scope of services—including three makerspaces, educational exhibits, events, and a café—a reasonable estimate would be 10 to 15 direct employees needed to operate the center. 

That would imply a job multiplier between 10 and 15—far above the 1.8 to 2.5 range typically found in innovation centers, according to the Brookings Institution and the Economic Policy Institute. Even Silicon Valley’s innovation hubs rarely exceed a multiplier of 4. Using a standard multiplier of 2.0, AHIC would realistically need closer to 75 direct employees to generate 150 jobs by year three. 

If AHIC were to employ 75 people instead of the 10 to 15 implied in its current budget, personnel costs alone could increase by a factor of 5 to 7.5. Given that staffing is typically the largest line item in operational budgets for facilities of this kind, that jump would fundamentally reshape AHIC’s cost structure—potentially ballooning annual expenses well beyond the current $592,300 estimate. For reference, a conservative annual cost per employee of $40,000 at 75 employees would balloon annual expenses closer to $3 million. 

While Lee referenced Beauties in Business—a regional entrepreneurship group with “450 women in our region [who] are entrepreneurs and small business owners”—no information was provided about how many of these members would use AHIC services or how it would affect the multiplier.

Finally, AHIC’s proposed inclusion of advanced technologies—such as holographic exhibits and interactive demonstrations—would require substantial investments in hardware, staffing, and maintenance. No technology budget, vendor list, or lifecycle maintenance plan was included in the available materials.

Site Control and Governance Structure

AHIC’s proposed governance model was built around the now-abandoned plan to place the facility at Waggoner Park. Under that framework, the City of Tullahoma would have leased the land to TAEDC, which would oversee construction and serve as grant administrator. A nonprofit partner, the Second to None Foundation, was designated to lead fundraising, with additional programmatic support from AEDC and allied institutions.

However, with the Waggoner site off the table and no replacement confirmed, the project’s governance structure—and responsibilities like land control, oversight, and liability—remain undefined.

Additional Concerns: Unaddressed Risks and Operational Gaps

In addition to the financial, growth, and governance concerns already outlined, several operational gaps remain unresolved. Chief among them is staffing. While AHIC is projected to create up to 150 jobs within three years, no information has been provided about how many of those positions would be employed directly by the center, what roles they would fill, or how the hiring process would be managed. No job descriptions, salary bands, recruitment strategy, or oversight structure was disclosed. Without clarity on who would manage hiring or operations—whether TAEDC, a nonprofit partner, or a separate governing body—the organizational viability of the project remains uncertain.

Liability and insurance planning is also absent. With multiple entities referenced in various roles—TAEDC, Second to None, the City of Tullahoma—it’s unclear who would hold liability in the event of injury, property damage, insolvency, or legal challenge. For a facility housing fabrication equipment, interactive exhibits, and public programming, this is not a minor omission; it’s a structural risk.

No documentation addresses Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance or broader accessibility needs. AHIC is pitched as a resource for students and families, yet no information was provided regarding physical access, sensory accommodations, or inclusive design for visitors with disabilities. These are federally mandated elements for public-facing facilities and must be built into both construction and operational plans from the outset.

The proposal also lacks any defined risk management framework. What happens if expected grant funding does not materialize? What if visitor traffic falls short or private fundraising lags? No contingency plans, phased development strategy, or fallback revenue models are described, leaving the project entirely dependent on its most optimistic assumptions.

Finally, there is no public timeline. No start date for construction, no milestones for site selection, and no benchmarks for staffing, programming, or funding applications. The absence of a roadmap makes it impossible for the public—or local officials—to evaluate progress or ensure accountability.

Most fundamentally, there is no evidence that AHIC’s programming was developed in response to demonstrated need. No public needs assessment has been made available, and there is no indication that local educators, families, entrepreneurs, or workforce development stakeholders were surveyed. Without data to support the project’s relevance or demand, AHIC remains a top-down proposal—a vision in search of a constituency.