Charges of conflict of interest in the appointment of local building contractor Morris Beasley to the McKenzie Board of Water Commissioners took most council members by surprise during the July 11 meeting of the McKenzie City Council.

Mayor Patty Edwards, during a meeting of the McKenzie Board of Water Commissioners held just prior to the City Council meeting, obtained Board approval of Mr. Beasley's appointment, however, she did not advise the City Council of the action.

Councilmember James Knolton, who learned of the appointment during a lull between meetings, stated near the end of the City Council meeting, "I think the mayor done wrong in appointing Morris Beasley to the Water Board...I think it's a conflict of interest... If he is on the Water Board he will get what he wants; he tried to on the subdivision out there."

Mayor Edwards countered, "If you want to vote on this appointment we can tonight; I don't think it's a conflict of interest."

Mr. Knolton's motion that the council not approve the appointment was seconded by Councilmember Wade Allen and approved by the Council, however, as discussion continued City Attorney Kent Jones advised the issue was closed, saying, "There were no nay votes, there's no discussion, the record is set."

As Council members reconsidered the action, Councilmember Gene Hale stated, "I'm not sure if there is a conflict of interest or not; I think Mr. Beasley should be allowed to defend himself. I hesitate to vote on something at the drop of the hat."

Mayor Edwards declared, "The Water Board approved it; I don't think I have to have Council approval."

Attorney Jones quickly interceded to state, "The Council has to approve all appointments; everything has to come before the Council."

As members continued to voice the need for further discussion, Attorney Jones advised the Mayor could state the action was rescinded and the motion and second could be withdrawn in order that the matter could be put on the agenda for the next meeting.

"Do you approve the choice?" Mayor Edwards asked Mr. Jones.

"You didn't recommend him," Mr. Jones replied.

As City Clerk Dana Deem stated, "I think it would be appropriate to bring this back to the next meeting," Mayor Edwards continued, "They (the Water Board members) have the right to appoint (Mr. Beasley.)"

"Yes, I think they have the right," Mr. Jones stated, going on to reiterate the approval process.

Councilmember Hale's motion to delay the issue until the next City Council meeting was seconded by Councilmember Knolton and approved; however, Mayor Edwards stated, "I want to go on record that I don't approve of this."

Council member Knolton then stated, "You do a lot of things you're not supposed to do," whereupon Mr. Hale quickly moved to adjourn followed rapidly by the second of Councilmember Willie Huffman.

The Mayor reacted strongly to the dismissal, calling out, "No!", however, Mr. Jones advised the Mayor that the meeting had been properly adjourned.

As the meeting was breaking up, Council members were advised of a conversation between Mayor Edwards and new Water Board Chairman Kenneth Hopper after the Water Board meeting in which Mayor Edwards stated she was concerned that Morris Beasley was going to sue the city because of his displeasure over the City's recent action approving the connection of sewer lines to a business subdivision under construction by Real Estate Broker Nicky Joe Stafford. Mr. Beasley was said to be disgruntled over the issue because the City had denied sewer connection to his subdivision on Brooks Street at city expense.

Discussions following the City Council meeting indicated the possibility of nominating several citizens for the Water Board vacancy with a vote determining the final appointment.

At press time, Mayor Edwards had notified both the Board of Water Commissioners and the City Council of a called meeting to be held at noon on Tuesday, July 16.

In another controversial issue confronting Council members, Councilmember Darra Adkins voiced displeasure over the scheduled public hearing and subsequent first reading regarding a recommendation by the Planning Commission to allow nursing homes in residential districts on appeal.

The recommendation was approved in the May 14 meeting of the Planning Commission after which the rationale and history of the action was reported in detail in the McKenzie Banner; however, the recommendation was apparently not presented in written form for the consideration of the Council.

While the public hearing generated no opposition to the measure, the action was voted down by Council members who opined that spot zoning would be sufficient if necessary, or, in the alternative, appropriate zoning measures could take place after the event if fire or natural disaster prevented the owner from being able to rebuild.

Mr. John Simonton, owner of the Oak Manor Health Care Center, had requested the rezoning of his properties to conform with the actual use of the land as current zoning places his business within the R-1 residential zoning district. He had expressed concern that if the building burned and was as much as 75% destroyed, he would be unable to rebuild the business as regulations require in that instance that any new structure be built in compliance with the zone in which it falls.

Planning Commissioners in the May 14 meeting had discussed various remedies to Mr. Simonton's problem, including spot-zoning the business. City Planner Richard O'Brien explained that one drawback of spot zoning is that if the city were involved in court action concerning zoning, a judge could interpret spot zoning as arbitrariness. Mr. O'Brien's suggestion that nursing homes be made a "use on appeal" in residential districts as a way of solving the problem had met the approval of commissioners.

In yet another controversial issue, Councilmember Darra Adkins voiced her disapproval over the unreported $1000 increase over the cost of last year's fireworks display. City Clerk Dana Deem advised that Melrose Display would not supply the show for less than $6000 and that all the companies he called had increased their basic rate to $6000.

Said Ms. Adkins, "I think we should have known it was going to cost more."
 

 
Property owners in the Town of Bruceton will face a 20 percent increase in property taxes, thanks mostly to the bankruptcy of the county's largest industry, which was located in Bruceton. The city board has decided to increase the tax rate to $1.40 per $100.00 assessed value, up from the current rate of $1.17.

"After much discussion and deliberation, the present tax situation was agreed by a unanimous roll call vote that it is necessary to increase property taxes in the Town of Bruceton to maintain the present level of services," according to a news release from the City. "The necessity to increase the property tax stems primarily from the financial shortfall as a result of the Henry I. Siegel/Durango bankruptcy and the fact that taxes have not been paid on the Siegel/Durango properties for the past three years. Every effort is being made by the City in conjunction with the County and Chamber of Commerce as well as others to find buyers for the Siegel buildings, but until a buyer is located, the situation will not change."

No employee of the city has received a raise in three years and the total workforce has been reduced over the past seven years, according to the news release.

The Henry I. Siegel company relocated its operations to Mexico after the North American Free Trade Agreement was approved by Congress.

"It illustrates how much the bankruptcy laws hurt a small community," said Brad Hurley, President of the Carroll County Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has had several industrial prospects look at the building. Hurley said HIS/Durango has approximately 1 million square feet of floor space in various building in Bruceton-proper.

City Recorder Tony Lancaster said HIS/Durango presently owes the City approximately $140,000 for the years 1999-2001. The amount includes personal property for 1999 and 2000. The personal property was sold and not reflected in the 2001 taxes, said Lancaster.

County Trustee Sue Smith said HIS/Durango owes the County of Carroll $125,441.40 in taxes and the Hollow Rock-Bruceton Special School District $212,695.89 for the years 1999 to 2001. An additional $94,393.72 is due in penalties and interest to the two governmental entities.

The amounts illustrate that industries bear a significant tax burden of the cities, counties, and schools.

A public hearing is set for Monday, July 29, at 7:00 p.m. at Bruceton City Hall to hear any concerns or answer any questions for the public, to address the city budget for the year 2002-2003 and to adopt the tax rate of $1.40.

Phone (731) 352-3323 or Fax (731) 352-3322
washburn@mckenziebanner.com