A

The Board of Mayor and Alderman, Citizens Committee and Planning Commission met in a special meeting study session to discuss the incoming progress the city may be facing as development applicants continue to apply for approval or recommendation.

The question of a moratorium was posed first by Mayor Ray Knowis.

“Do we need a moratorium today on any future development that we have in sight?” he asked.

Alderman Bobbie Wilson responded first.

“We’re in the middle of trying to revise our comprehensive plan,” she said, “I think that they are definitely infrastructure concerns in the city and with the amount of developments coming that have already passed, that’s cause for concern.”

She emphasized concern about the potential effect of population growth on taxpayers, and asked Senior Planner Charles Rush for his continuing expertise to help provide answers to committees to help shape policy.

Rush responded by saying that as far as infrastructure is concerned, the city is in “good condition,” and that a proposed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan will be able to “pay for itself,” if approved by BoMA. He added that the city is currently growing at 1.37%, according to the American Community Service data about Tullahoma.

“They estimate that at about 2030,” he said. “So we’re not growing anywhere near the amount of anything else around us.”

“To even talk about impact fees or a moratorium,” Rush said that compared to the surrounding areas’ growth of 15 to 20% warrants such talk, but “we haven’t even touched that.”

“So, could we talk about this in the future and about updating some stuff, yes.” He said.

“But as it is right now, staff does not believe” it is currently necessary.

Nancy Chaney, a member of the Citizens Committee, posed a question about the Planned Mixed-Unit (P-MU) development proposed to the commission that received a favorable recommendation during the commission’s previous meeting, Summerlin.

“Does the public understand whether that has been approved to come in?” she asked.

Rush answered that it hadn’t yet been approved.

Her next question was “How would a moratorium affect the P-MU?”

Alderman Jenna Amacher answered her, saying “Well it depends on whether we have limited building permits, technically.”

Alderman Daniel Berry addressed Wilson’s concerns directly.

“[Coffee] County released some data,” he said. “They took Manchester, Tullahoma and Coffee County and they measured year over year real property value increase.”

He said, according to the county, Manchester’s property value tax revenue had increased by 4%, the county increased by about 3.5% and Tullahoma increased by 1.6% in 2022. His concern was about the city not being able to match the projected increase.

“A single home on a five-acre lot, that’s going to cost taxpayers more money, than if someone put three homes on that five-acre lot,” he said.

“So those are things that we do need to consider,” said Berry.

Amacher and Alderman Kurt Glick expressed concern about overgrowth, as a counter to Berry’s point.

“We’re going to have to have real data,” Wilson said, regarding economic impact. “I thought the moratorium was a good way to go, because we can’t keep making decisions just because something meets the bare minimum requirements.”

 City Administrator Jason Quick spoke in response to the aldermen.

“So, in conversations that I’ve had with Sue Wilson (Finance Director), I’ve spoken with all of our department heads, we’ve realized that you (BoMA) need to make data-informed decisions,” he said. “We’ve had several conversations to make sure that we can drill down and provide you with that data.”

He continued, “One of the things that I would ask you is to go ahead and tell us what data you want first. Hopefully, by the end of the year, we can provide you with some real, accurate data that can drive some of your decisions.”

“Most of our land–a good majority of it–has already been developed,” Amacher said, explaining that the county and Manchester had more farmland available for development. “Our growth should be slower considering the available land that we have to develop.”

Berry responded to Amacher’s emphasis on needing a slow and careful growth and said “That’s why we need our comprehensive plan.”

Wilson said “It’s important, but we need to deal with what’s in front of us.”

She readdressed her concerns about impact and infrastructure, before City Attorney Stephen Worsham spoke.

“This is not a legal issue at all, but I want to point out to y’all that I was at the Planning Commission last time, when this matter of the new development on North Jackson Street came up,” he said. “The project is going to be financed by a tax incentive program like we did with Publix.”

He said the developer had a plan to help with local schools as well as help with land for a fire department.

“So this developer appears to be very responsible and appears to be someone who wants to work with our concerns,” he said. “I think that they’re going to work with us.”

He reminded the board that developments that were approved even several years ago were not complete, and said that he did not think that the development would actually be 996 homes in 10 years.

Amacher asked Worsham to explain the TIF and how it would work regarding the Summerlin development.

“It was a long time ago that I got a degree in economics, Ms. Amacher, but I’ll try to explain what I think it is,” Worsham said. “The tax revenue generated from the project will be used to reduce the debt because the people will borrow money to build the project. But also, money will be set aside to help the schools as well, to help us alleviate the cost and impact on our area.”

Amacher clarified that the TIF required contractual agreements with the city, and Worsham agreed.

“These are wonderful programs,” he said. “They really pay for themselves.”

There was more back and forth discussion and then Knowis spoke up.

“Let me say this, the only way that our citizens’ taxes will go up is if we have a moratorium on future development. And all of the existing taxpayers have to increase what they’re paying (right now),” he said.

“Increase the tax base: that’s the way to grow. Not increase taxes, but increase the tax base. If we do a moratorium, we scare away developers that could be contributing to the growth in our city.”

He explained that moratoriums are specific, not broad.

“We’ve got a very modest growth, and we will continue to have a very modest growth based on the economy,” he said. He again emphasized the importance of increasing the tax base instead of the taxes.

Chaney spoke of her concern about not being able to provide for residents already in the city due to the new residents that would come with larger developments.

City Administrator Jason Quick addressed this concern.

“I agree with you, but we’ve got to have the money in order to do that,” Quick said. “Because our tax base has not increased, the cost of services to our city does keep increasing. My hope is that, if we were to follow through with the P-MU that also energizes the rest of the city to start seeing opportunities for the city to grow.

“We need to do something, because we’re at a crux right now where our sales tax revenue is not strong enough to continue us providing the level of services we have, based on where we are right now,” he added. “If we can increase our property tax base, then sales taxes will come from that, too.”