BRADY FLANIGANStaff Writer

The short answer is—not just yet, if at all. But on Jan. 27, the city took the idea a little more seriously, electing to hold a study session to explore its options. A small step, a ballerina’s step across a colossal stage. But things are moving.

The question of a new city hall has been passed down like an heirloom, landing in each new administration’s hands with the same set of problems: the cost is high, the attachment is deep. So it kept getting kicked down the road. But roads wear thin, and so do buildings.

In the spring of ’24, former Mayor Ray Knowis’ board approved a study to assess city hall’s condition and weigh the city’s options. City Administrator Jason Quick presented the findings at the latest Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting, identifying a few key issues.

Built in 1954

City hall was a product of the postwar boom that followed the opening of Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC). Time has left scars, and the study identified the following issues with the existing structure: 

• Water damage from deteriorating masonry and stone veneers
• Water leaks and air pockets in prevailing flat roof
• HVAC system replacement needed throughout
• Unstable primary plumbing line due to age and composite material
• Inefficient electrical system due to multiple repairs with nonconforming breakers and wiring scheme
• Presence of biological hazards throughout the structure

Silo mentality

When the Tullahoma Municipal Building was constructed, it was designed to house practically every category of city government—everything from Planning and Codes to the fire department. As the city expanded, certain departments were required to move off site. Over the years officials have argued this has created a “silo mentality.” Information flows less efficiently between the subsets of government, collaboration diminishes, and everyone returns to hiding in their foxholes. It’s argued constructing a new, larger building to centrally house everybody could force interaction and improve the efficiency of government in Tullahoma. 

Fiscal and operational deficiencies 

The Tullahoma Municipal Building isn’t just showing its age—it’s running up the bill. “I can tell you from what we’re doing from a fiscal standpoint when it comes to heating and air and some of the basic utilities—we’re paying a lot more than what we should,” Quick said.

The HVAC system struggles to keep temperatures consistent, the electrical work is a patchwork of old repairs, and the plumbing is nearing the end of its lifespan. Water damage, mold, and other hazards have crept in over time, raising concerns not just about the building, but about the people working in it.

At some point, the city will have to decide: keep patching up the past, or invest in something built for the future.

Possible paths forward

The study laid out key objectives for a new city hall—how to improve efficiency, expand space, and build for the future. The plan calls for at least 18,800 square feet—enough to bring more departments under one roof and improve collaboration. It also aims to ensure that whatever is built now will serve the city’s needs for years to come.

In collaboration with OLG Engineering Inc., St. John Engineering LLC, and Upland Design Group, the city narrowed the options down to three—and put a price tag on each. Each comes with its own benefits, but its own problems too. 

Solution #1: New building on the current site

This option would demolish the current Tullahoma Municipal Building and replace it with a new 21,400-square-foot facility on the same site. Constructing on the existing location is expected to cut development costs while maintaining the sentimental attachment to the building.

Designed in the mid-century modern style by Chattanooga-based firm Bianculli, Palm, and Purnell, the building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in August 2018. But despite that status, it has no state or federal protections—if the city wants to tear it down, it can.

This project comes with an estimated cost of around $11 million. But it also comes with logistical headaches. The site limits design flexibility, and construction would likely disrupt traffic on North Jackson Street. Building costs per square foot would be higher, and city departments would need to be relocated during construction. Then there’s the issue of parking—there simply wouldn’t be enough of it to accommodate all city employees.

Solution #2: New building on a new site

A new site would give architects more flexibility in design, allowing for better functionality and room for future expansion. It would also eliminate the logistical challenges of relocating city departments during construction.

Selling the current city hall could also generate revenue to offset costs—both from the sale itself and the potential tax revenue if the site is redeveloped commercially.

Another option under consideration is a hybrid city hall—one that blends municipal offices with residential space, a model that has gained traction in Tennessee over the past decade. Nolensville is a key example, with a city hall that integrates both government functions and retail spaces.

The biggest risks? Selling city hall could erase a piece of local history, disrupt efforts to revitalize downtown, and come with financial uncertainty—no one knows what the building would actually fetch on the market. Estimated costs on constructing a new city hall somewhere else are placed between $9-12 million. 

Solution #3: Adaption to an existing, non-city owned building

Moving city hall into an existing building could cut renovation costs compared to new construction while also revitalizing an underutilized site.

City services could continue uninterrupted during renovations. Parking options would expand, and a new city hall could bring life to a less-developed part of town.

But, like selling the current city hall, this move risks slowing downtown’s revitalization. And the true cost? That’s the gamble. Hidden structural issues could drive up expenses once renovations begin. The price tag? Impossible to pin down—it all depends on the building.

What’s next

City Administrator Quick’s presentation sparked a few questions. Alderman Jerry Mathis got straight to the point: “What’s the difference in cost between a new building and renovation?”

Quick took a moment before answering. “Honestly, Alderman Mathis, let me back up for a second. We did look if there’s a way to renovate this site, but the cost to renovate this site is going to be the same and could be even a little bit more than if we tore it down and built it back up. If you look at the outside structure that has the marble and the stone, that’s what a lot of citizens have talked about that appeals to them. If we were going to try and maintain that, in talking to the engineers, in order for us to do that it’s going to be 50-50 if we can ever even do that without disrupting the stone outside. For us to build on this site, and/or build on a brand-new site, it’s going to be pretty close to the same quite honestly.”

Alderman Bobbie Wilson added, “I was just going to comment that our current city hall is in dire disrepair. It’s in critical condition really. I know from experience that while sometimes it’s appealing to see the cost of renovating something, realistically it’s silly because you never know what you’re getting into, and you’re always going to come into a lot of issues. I look forward to this coming to the study session for sure.”

The board elected to move forward with a study session, which will be scheduled in the coming weeks. City officials will use the session to further discuss the feasibility of each option and determine the next steps for the future of Tullahoma’s city hall.