Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tullahoma board debates shifting hotel‑motel tax to sports council during budget second reading
Summary
At a June 8 board meeting, public commenters and several aldermen debated reallocating hotel/motel occupancy tax revenue to a local Sports Council (proposals ranged from 1.5% already in ordinance to a suggested 15%); the board voted 6‑0 to adopt the budget on second reading and asked staff to model impacts before the final reading.
TULLAHOMA, Tenn. — During a public hearing and the second reading of Ordinance 16‑85 on June 8, members of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen considered reallocating a share of the city’s hotel‑motel occupancy tax to a local Sports Council, with proponents urging the board to treat sports tourism as a tourism marketing priority.
"The sports council is directly responsible for more than 30,000 visitors to the city of Tullahoma during the last 12 months," said Mister Chastain, a public commenter who asked the board to set a percentage of the occupancy tax for the Sports Council and suggested 15% as a starting point.
Why it matters: the board is in the second of three readings on the annual budget and tax rate (Ordinance 16‑85). Shifting occupancy‑tax shares would reallocate money that currently funds tourism and civic entities; board members said they want to avoid unintended cuts to other programs without staff analysis.
City staff and Chamber representatives noted existing allocations. "The Chamber of Commerce receives 12% of the occupancy tax from visitors," said "Miss Nutanley," who described how that revenue supports three full‑time tourism positions and marketing that attracts visitors. A later public commenter, Beverly Lee, identified herself as a Chamber board member and chairman of the local economic development corporation and urged the board to consider the Chamber an investment in economic growth.
Board discussion focused on how to implement any change. City staff noted an ordinance line item that allows up to 1.5% for sports tourism (which staff estimated would be about $7,100 at the budgeted revenue level), while proponents proposed considerably larger shares: 15% would equal about $71,750 given the budgeted occupancy‑tax projection of $478,357. Aldermen discussed alternatives including 12% allocations to multiple tourism entities, using reserves, or adding a temporary budget line this year and changing the ordinance (which requires three readings) later.
Alderman Mathis moved to adopt the budget on second reading "as presented," and the board voted 6‑0 to carry the motion, advancing Ordinance 16‑85 as the second of three readings. Several aldermen asked staff and the city administrator to return with precise figures and legal checks before the final reading.
The board did not finalize a permanent change to the occupancy‑tax ordinance at the meeting; members requested staff modeling of how alternative percentage allocations (12% vs. 15%, for example) would affect other budget lines and reserves ahead of the next meeting.
