archive-edu.com » EDU » T » TENNESSEE.EDU

Total: 795

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Knowledgebase-Annexation Study Update
    within the annexation area I believe this was also the recommendation of the town s engineer and would be a requirement of the State Department of Environment and Conservation When sewage does not flow from valleys in the collection system hydrogen sulfide which is a deadly sewer gas tends to accumulate The presence of the deadly gas is a danger to sewer collection system workers and possibly others Adjusting for inflation I believe the current estimated cost of the sewer collection system expansion within the proposed annexation area would be approximately 500 000 In my opinion it is doubtful that the town would qualify for a 500 000 grant to serve approximately 27 existing customers The streets in the area are very substandard and will require substantial capital expenditures to bring them up to an acceptable standard The town may be looking at a cost of approximately 300 000 for streets and drainage improvements It appears that state shared revenue and property tax revenues coupled with sewer rates would not generate sufficient revenue to justify the expense of the proposed annexation Most cities require that the development pay for the cost of streets drainage and utilities and recover their cost from the sale of lots The town needs to explore ways to make this happen without bearing the cost of new development One of the ways to make this happen is to adopt a policy of not extending utilities outside the town unless the developer petitions for annexation Once annexation is accomplished the town can impose infrastructure requirements and standards which could require the developer to install streets drainage and utilities and dedicate to the town Another alternative is to seek regional planning commission jurisdiction which would require county approval then the area would be subject to the town s

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/963b92b46a0ff2aa852578ef00607a54?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Knowledgebase-Annexing and Zoning Property in the Same Ordinance
    to be delivered and the projected timing of the services The plan of services must be done before the annexation The plan of services must include a reasonable implementation schedule Nothing in that statute nor any other provision of the annexation law that I can find suggests that once the plan of services is adopted the municipality cannot actually accomplish the zoning of the territory within the annexation ordinance If the annexation ordinance fails the plan of services including its zoning component would simply go down with it In addition in State ex rel SCA Chemical Waste Services Inc v Konigsberg 636 Tenn 430 Tenn 1982 Shelby County adopted an interim moratorium on the issuance of certain building permits pending the county s revision of its comprehensive zoning ordinance The Court upheld that moratorium based on vague language in a private act giving the county broad general powers to adopt resolutions governing the operation of government or regulating the conduct and affairs of the residents of the city The same act provided that the grant of power should be liberally construed For that reason continued the Court Thus although specific authority to enact an interim zoning ordinance or regulation of the type here in issue is not specifically mentioned in the private act we have no hesitation in concluding that it was intended to be included within the broad sweep of the legislative power granted by that section At 436 Citing Sherman v Reavis 373 S C 542 257 S E 2d 735 1979 the Court continued We hold that a municipality may properly refuse a building permit for a land use in a newly annexed area when such use is repugnant to a pending and later enacted zoning ordinance This holding which is followed by numerous jurisdictions is supported by sound reasoning Citation omitted As stated in Chicago Title Trust Company v Palantine 22 Ill App 2d 264 160 N E 2d 697 700 1959 It would be utterly illogical to old that after a zoning commission had prepared a comprehensive zoning ordinance or an amendment thereto which was on file and open to public inspection and upon which public hearings had been held and while the ordinance was under consideration any person could by merely filing an application compel the municipality to issue a permit which would allow him to establish a use which he either knew or could have known would be forbidden by proposed ordinance and by doing so nullify the entire work of the municipality in endeavoring to carry out the purpose for which the zoning law was enacted 257 S E 2d 737 At 436 Section 6 19 101 26 of the general law manager commission charter under which your City is established provides that among the powers of the city is power to Regulate the location bulk occupancy area lot location height construction and materials of all buildings and structures The authority of the City to pass interim zoning ordinances then is considerably

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/75015a83e39c637f85256d80006c1ecd?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annexing Territory Without Providing Sewer Service
    1 arguably requires only a reasonable scope of those services but contains no clue as to what is reasonable Subdivision b 3 further muddies the waters on the question of whether all of the services contained in subdivision b 2 including sewer services must be provided in annexed territory It provides that The plan of services shall include a reasonable implementation schedule for the delivery of comparable services in the territory to be annexed with respect to the services delivered to all the citizens of the municipality At first glance it can be argued that under subdivision b 3 the reasonable scope of services required to be provided by the city under subdivision b 2 is services comparable to those received by all other citizens of the city That argument might be strong where a city does not have a sewer system and provides no sewer service to any of its residents or where the city s sewer service is provided by a utility district or private company In the first case the city does not provide any of its citizens sewer service and in the second case the city has no control over the provision of sewer service to it citizens However that argument it is not as convincing where a city has a sewer system and provides sewer service to even some of its citizens It is not logical to me that if a city provides sewer service to say 65 of its citizens I pulled that number out of the air it could be any figure it can annex territory without including sewer service in the annexed area on the ground that it does not supply sewer service to all of its citizens Tennessee Code Annotated 6 58 102 contains the policy statements supporting Chapter 1101 one of which is that With this Chapter the general assembly intends to establish a comprehensive growth policy for this state that 3 more closely matches the timing of development and the provision of public service The major complaint with plans of services that predate Chapter 1101 generally did not involve general municipal services such as police fire etc those services were usually provided in annexed areas immediately upon annexation The major complaint was with sewer service Many plans of services that predate Chapter 1101 did not include sewer service or made such vague promises about that service that it was clear such service were never going to be provided at least not in the foreseeable future For that reason it is likely that the lack of sewer service was the primary problem that the plan of services provisions of Chapter 1101 attempted to address There is no doubt that both the policy statement and the plan of service provisions in Chapter 1101 could have been clearer with respect to the question of whether sewer service was required to be provided in newly annexed areas But it seems to me totally inconsistent with the policy and letter of Chapter 1101 that

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/e4595a1583e821a585256eb400656405?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annual Benchmarks, Public Works & Utilities, FY 2014
    and drainage maintenance fleet maintenance water treatment wastewater treatment water distribution and wastewater collection Original Author Wibking Lyndy Co Author Product Create Date 03 16 2015 Last Reviewed on 03 17 2015 Subject Performance measurement Solid waste Collection Surveys Streets

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/faf2601011e3caec85257e0b0046af2d?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annual Contract for Mowing Developed and Vacant City-Owned and Abandoned Property (Re-Bid)
    Contract for Mowing Developed and Vacant City Owned and Abandoned Property Re Bid Summary An example of an annual mowing contract Original Author Beaumont Texas Co Author Product Create Date 07 13 2011 Last Reviewed on 01 20 2012 Subject

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/a29ca11666bcfdb78525798b00529513?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annual Contract for Mowing Privately-Owned Developed and Vacant Property (Re-Bid)
    Annual Contract for Mowing Privately Owned Developed and Vacant Property Re Bid Summary An example of an annual mowing contract Original Author Beaumont Texas Co Author Product Create Date 07 13 2011 Last Reviewed on 01 20 2012 Subject Purchasing

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/d591c0df42602e6a8525798b0050e8cc?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Annual Publication of Notice under the Open Meetings Law
    law shall give adequate public notice of such meeting c The notice requirements of this part are in addition to and not in substitution of any other notice required by law The question of whether there has been adequate public notice in Tennessee is determined by a totality of circumstances In Memphis Publishing Company v City of Memphis 513 S W 2d 511 Tenn 1974 the Tennessee Supreme Court declared that Adequate public notice means adequate public notice under the circumstances or such notice based on the totality of the circumstances as would fairly inform the public At 513 Emphasis is mine Also see Neece v Paris Special School District 813 S W 2d 432 Tenn Ct App 1990 Other states that have considered the question of whether adequate public notice has been given of a meeting have adopted a combination of a totality of circumstances and a substantial compliance rule The policy reasons supporting the substantial compliance rule fit the totality of circumstances rule standing by itself In Stelzer v Huddleston 526 S W 2d 710 there was not literal compliance with the Texas Open Records Law In declaring that the notice was adequate the Court observed that The rationale of the substantial compliance rule is that while the notice provisions in statutes are mandatory they are essentially procedural that rigid adherence to such a procedural mandate will not be required if it is clear that a substantial compliance provides realistic fulfillment of the purpose for which the mandate was incorporated in the statute A determination of the applicability of substantial compliance will of course depend on the circumstances of each case At 713 Emphasis is mine In Furlong v Manning 514 A 2d 860 Super Ct N J 1986 written notice to the newspaper of a public hearing was required by statute The government in this case gave face to face notice In upholding the adequacy of the notice the Court declared that I find therefore that a face to face communication of notice to newspaper representatives is an acceptable mode of transmittal under the Open Public Meetings Act and is not repugnant to the purpose of the statute namely adequate public notice At 862 Rhea v City of Gainesville 574 So 2d 221 Fla App 1 Dist 1991 involved an open meetings statute that did not contain a specific notice requirement The Court said this about that statute Although the statute does not contain a specific notice requirement it has been held that reasonable notice of a public meeting is mandatory in order for the meeting to be public in essence Citations omitted In Yarborough v Young 462 So 2d 515 Fla 1st DCA 1985 the court found that three days notice of meeting constituted reasonable notice And in a 1973 attorney general s opinion it was stated that the meaning of the term due public notice would vary depending upon the fact situation but that its purpose was to apprise the public of the pendency of

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/19ffa4b4e5da978485256c2a0042f3e4?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Knowledgebase-Anonymous Complaints of Code Violations
    public duty to enforce the law but there is no private duty to individuals unless there is a special relationship created between the individual and the City See Ezell v Cockrell 902 S W 2d 394 Tenn 1995 in which the Court found no liability arising from the police chief of Elkton failing to stop an obviously drunk person from driving The potential liability in a special relationship situation would be to the persons who suffer bodily injury or property damage because of the City s failure to investigate and remedy the complaint and not to the complainant unless of course he or she is one of these persons The state Supreme Court in Matthews v Pickett County 996 S W 2d162 Tenn 1999 states three 3 situations that create a special relationship or special duty to an individual 1 A public official affirmatively undertakes to protect a person and the person relies on that undertaking 2 A statute specifically provides a cause of action against an official or municipality for injuries resulting to a particular class of individuals of which the plaintiff is a member for failure to enforce certain laws or 3 A plaintiff alleges a cause of action involving intent malice or reckless misconduct 996 S W 2d at 165 It would be an extremely unusual situation in which any of these situations would prevail in an anonymous complaint situation A public official is probably not going to tell an anonymous caller that the City will ensure his or her safety There is no statute that creates a cause of action against the City or its officials for failure to enforce safety codes To the contrary Tennessee Code Annotated 29 20 205 3 and 4 grant the City immunity for failure to revoke approvals and permits and failure to do inspections This immunity alone would protect the City in all these situations And it would be difficult for an anonymous complainant to establish intent malice or reckless misconduct In short there is no duty on the part of the City to protect individuals from harm unless there is a special relationship or special duty created between the City and the individual It would be difficult to establish this relationship with an anonymous person and the immunity granted in 29 20 205 should protect the City from liability Question 3 Is the city required to honor the request of a complainant to be anonymous if the complainant gave his her name Answer There is nothing in the Open Records Law or exceptions to that law that makes this information confidential Any record created with the complainant s name on it would be open and accessible to the public This might be another reason to allow anonymous complaints since it might have a chilling effect on complaints if the complainant cannot be assured that he she can be anonymous The only situation in which the record might be confidential is if it became part of an active investigative file

    Original URL path: http://www.mtas.tennessee.edu/KnowledgeBase.nsf/cae6677dbd7f74a5852573ae005a41d4/65136f5e6475288985256d8f006bca58?OpenDocument (2015-11-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •