MACC Roof and public input

On June 4 we had our monthly "agenda meeting". Most of this was routine. An engineer (James Cawthorne) presented details on planned improvements in water supply to our water customers down near the "space house" and Loretta Hopper reported on research on traffic calming devices like rumble strips. We also discussed an exciting proposal from a private company to do curbside recycling for a monthly fee but with "rebates" in the form of reward points based on amount recycled. We are researching this further, also.

Another issue which came up was one I thought of as minor though it created quite a stir from the rest of the council. However, it does bring up the broader issue of the role of our various town commissions and boards. We have many such boards and this council has expanded the numbers of boards over the last 3 1/2 years. It is my opinion that these boards are a valuable way to get citizens involved directly in town activities and provide valuable public input on specific issues as representatives of the town. While the town council obviously has final authority and responsibility to decide, I have always felt that input from citizen boards on issues pertinent to their area of interest should be strongly considered. Sometimes, it is valuable to try to hold large public hearings for citizen input, but doing this on too many issues can lead to paralysis.

The specific issue being considered was the project to replace the roof on the Mountain Arts Community Center. This roof was originally slate, but over time has been mostly replaced with shingles. The architect planning this project presented the idea of using a dark, brick red color which he felt would compliment the mountain stone facade. He presented this to town staff who liked the idea. Frankly, I was initially dubious, but after seeing a picture of the what the MACC would look like I was intrigued. I then was up in Nashville visiting the Hermitage and saw several old service building from the 20's and 30's with similar roofs and realized how attractive they were and that this would be an historic look and I became supportive. The staff then took it to the appropriate town committees. This was approved unanimously by the MACC Board. The MACC Foundation, formerly known as Friends of MACC, is not an official "town" board, but they reviewed the idea and approved it (I think there was one dissenting vote). Finally, the project went before the town Design Review Committee where it was also approved unanimously and, as I understand it with minimal controversy or discussion. My understanding was that the council liaison, Susan Robertson even raised no objections at that time. Nonetheless, with the shingles on order for this past Tuesday, Annette Allen went to the town manager over the Memorial Day holiday to ask for a public hearing process to approve this change and sent an email to the council. Bill Lusk emailed that the town should go ahead and replace the roof with his own personal choice of color for the roof based on the previous color instead of the one approved by the multiple committees. We delayed the process until the end of the week when our meeting was scheduled. This meeting was well-attended by members of the MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC and MACC Board chairman Bill Wallace made a presentation on the process of making this decision and asking why the council disagreed. The other members of the council stated that they thought it wouldn't be accepted by the public. When I pointed out that nearly 100% of the "public" on these three committees had supported it, I was told that they (the committees) were not representative of the "public" because they were "artsy" people and better educated than the general citizenry of Signal Mountain. I obviously objected strenuously and made a motion to accept the recommendation of the architect, staff, MACC Board, MACC Foundation and DRC. This motion was rejected 1-4. So, the MACC will have a grey roof (decided on by the council majority without any further public input). Since the price of shingles was supposed to go up 5-7% the next week, the various committees present asked the council to move forward rather than drag this out any longer with further public hearings.

Obviously, this view of "citizen input" disagrees with my view. In our last meeting, we were presented with a budget item to replace the floor in the gym. This was a high priority from the Recreation Committee and was recommended by our staff (including the Recreation Director and Town Manager). The Council decided to take this item out of the budget. I recommended we meet with the Rec Board to better understand the need, but was overrulled with Hershel Dick in particular being very adamant that we should not have the board talking to us about budget items and that only staff should have input. Bill Lusk stated at our next meeting that he had "shot a few hoops" in the gym that morning and decided the floor did not need replacement. Again, I would have preferred a more open process with input from the citizen committee which has responsibility and particular interest in this area. A final example involves the MACC Board once again when they recently had some questions about the salary and employment agreement of the MACC Director and Mr. Dick asked Honna Rogers to inform the MACC Board that the director "works for the town, not for them". I pointed out that, frankly I considered the citizens to be the town and that we, the Council and all the staff work for "them".  This is my opinion.

I would urge citizens to give thought to our various committees and their responsibilities (and the amount of time that citizens volunteer for these committees) and let the council know if they are comfortable with these boards representing them.