Crossville Council votes to seek demolition of Inn of the Cumberlands

In the nearly two years since the City of Crossville condemned the old Inn of the Cumberlands structure on Sparta Highway at Tennessee Avenue the owners have done nothing to alleviate the problems with the building.

The city council heard a report on the situation during their January meeting from city attorney Will Ridley. Ridley reminded the council they had discussed the property in their recent closed executive session and the possibility of filing a lawsuit against the property owners. According to Ridley, the property has been through the administrative hearing process.

City Attorney Will Ridley

“We have worked with these property owners almost continuously for the past two years and received promise after promise that changes would be made and that has not occurred,” explained Ridley. He added that the property was set to go on the tax sale the following week but the owners paid the minimum amount to pull the property out of the tax sale.

Inn of the Cumberlands

Ridley told the council, “What I'm asking you today is if you are ready to move forward with and authorize me to file suit in Chancery Court to seek a demolition of the property. And I want you to be aware up front that this will not be a property that we make out money back on.” According to Ridley, the city will be paying to demolish the property but because there are so much taxes owed to the city and the county that will have to be paid first. In addition, there is another lien that may have to be paid before the city is that would be explored in the lawsuit.

Asked about numbers, Ridley said about $70,000 in back taxes were owed and the cost of demolition is estimated by the codes department at $100,000 including tonnage dumping fees. Ridley said one of the partners had purchased a trust deed from the bank but he did not have details on that as nothing has been registered at the courthouse on that trust deed.

Councilman Danny Wyatt said, “Move to approve Mayor. Let's take this to court.” The motion was supported by council member Pamala Harris.

The authorization was unanimously approved.

Council also approved an action against a tenant renting an airplane T-hanger at the Crossville Memorial Airport that is being used to house an RV and not an airplane. According to Ridley, the use is disallowed in the lease and the tenant has also not held proper insurance for several years.

TOSHA Safety complaint of Summer 2016 lead to 2nd complaint of retaliation against former city employee

After initially refusing to release documents connected to two Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) complaints filed against the Crossville Water Resources Department following action last week by the city council to approve a settlement on one complaint, some of the documents have now been provided.

The complaints, from the summer of 2016 were made to TOSHA by a then-employee of the Crossville Water Resources Department. The employee was fired shortly after making the complaints about safety concerns, first to the water department supervisors and then to TOSHA and then the question of whether the firing could be considered retaliation for the safety complaint is the second more serious complaint that is now under consideration by the city council for a settlement. The identity of the employee is being protected and has been redacted from the documents released by the city.

As city attorney Will Ridley wrote in his letter releasing the complaint copies but not the letter to the city from the Tennessee Attorney General, “As you are aware, the City of Crossville has been threatened with a potential lawsuit to which we maintain we have no liability. I am currently working to settle this matter without the unnecessary expense of a trial.”

It is unclear what the timeline of a possible settlement with the former employee might be.

The TOSHA complaints in question filed by the employee lead to the city's notification by letter dated August 24, 2016, about water leaking inside a 480-volt cabinet of the Miox equipment used to treat water without chlorine gas. The second complaint was about a caustic soda and sodium hypochlorite line leaking. The letter states the city should investigate and make any necessary corrections within 5 days.

Dried brine indicating leak in Miox equipment

The following day another TOSHA letter was sent by certified mail to Jerry Kerley about the second complaint and investigation into possible discriminatory employment practices in violation of the TOSHA Act alleging that the employee was terminated after filing safety concerns.

A letter of response to the more serious charge of discriminatory practice was sent by attorney Ridley September 8, 2016, stating that the first notice about the safety complaint was not received until after the employee was terminated. In addition, Ridley's letter states in a separation meeting with Crossville Human Resources Director Leah Crockett on July 26, 2016, Crockett said the employee stated she had complained to OSHA but had not notified anyone at the city of the safety situation. Ridley's also wrote that the employee told Crockett that a discrimination complaint had been filed with TOSHA and an attorney had been hired.

In response to the safety complaint, Crossville safety director Kevin Dean said in a letter to TOSHA that in the first complaint no hazard existed as the cabinet was designed with a drain and the electrical equipment in the cabinet was in a sealed compartment. The letter further states that the former employee had informed the supervisor about the issue and a call was made to a certified Miox technician leading to a part being replaced.

Dried salt from brine in the

Miox cabinet

Dried brine on wires in the

Miox electrical cabinet

The second part of the safety complaint on leaking pipes took several days to locate an intermittent overhead leak in a bleach line that occurred every three hours or so leading to a repair. The repair was reportedly made prior to the TOSHA notification. A repair was also made to a caustic soda (lye) line from an “internal notification” where a “crusting” was found at a coupling connection and repairs were made.

Caustic soda (lye) leak

Shortly after the letter concerning the safety complaints was received by TOSHA, a notification that TOSHA would close the file on the safety complaint was received however, the discrimination complaint remains open and is what the city is hoping to settle.

That second investigation was done by TOSHA compliance officer John Houghton and a letter dated October 12, 2016, that said he was classifying the case as a merit case saying, “Which means I will forward the case to the Attorney General's office.” Houghton continued, “This does not mean the City is guilty of anything, just that I believe more than likely it was an act of discrimination and the AG's office would investigate further.”

The letter also offers the settlement the city is back to considering with an agreement from both sides agreeing not to talk about the case and neither side admitting guilt. In addition, the agreement would pay the former employee for 11 weeks of work at the $7170.24.  This is the same settlement the city council approved in a special called meeting in November 2017.

Also attached to the documents are interviews with water department Maintenance supervisor Brian Lowe and lab manager Joe Kerley. Lowe's statement says that he had talked to the employee two or three times about wearing flip-flops and shorts to work, a violation of the dress code. Lowe also said he did not feel the employee put other employees in danger nor was she the type to sabotage anything at the facility.

An interview with Joe Kerley notes that the employee did not notify him about safety issues but did text maintenance supervisor Brian Lowe. Kerley said he had talked to the employee several times about dress code violations and did not remember taking corrective action against other employees for the same thing.

Kerley also stated that the employee was putting other employees in danger by not reporting safety hazards and he said his fear of possible sabotage was to take photos of problems and send them to the attorney.   

Council approves TOSHA Settlement involving former employee-Attorney maintains documents not public.

Crossville city council approved a settlement over an as yet unreleased Tennessee Occupational Health and Safety Administration (TOSHA) complaint filed by a former city employee.

Even though there is no provision for a document protection under the “attorney-client privilege” as has been put forth by Crossville city attorney Will Ridley, the documents involved have still not been released.

According to Ridley, who said he had spoken to each council member privately in place of holding a closed executive session last week, he had received a letter from the Tennessee Attorney General on November 1 that gave the city a deadline of November 6 to respond but the city was given an extension to be able to meet.

City Attorney Will Ridley

“We've tried to keep this confidential for two reasons,” Ridley told the council, “One is attorney-client privilege at this point and two the former employee that is the subject of this, per the order of the attorney general, we're trying to protect that person.”

The complaint in question was made to TOSHA several months ago and the state agency did an investigation of the complaint. Ridley said the city tried to enter into an agreement at that time but the former employee wouldn't sign a release. Now that the Attorney General's office has taken up the case, and told the city if they will enter into a settlement agreement they won't sue the city, the city won't have to admit any guilt or wrongdoing toward the employee, and agree to pay the employee $7,170.24 in back pay less standard deductions.

Ridley reminded the council that the city's deductible is $5000 and he had spoken to Tennessee Municipal League the insurance is through and their attorney recommended the city make the settlement. The total cost to the city would be that $5000.

In addition, the city is required to post TOSHA safety posters. The employee's file will also be purged of any documents related to their termination and that no bad recommendations are given.

Finally, Ridley said, “The Attorney General's office will require the former employee to sign a release of any and all claims she has against the city arising out of this complaint.”

Councilman J. H. Graham moved to accept the settlement and that was supported by Councilman Danny Wyatt. The motion was unanimously approved.

We requested copies of the Original TOSHA complaint as well as the Attorney General's letter to the city and as given the following response from Ridley: "Both are attorney client privilege and neither should be released. Neither are a document of record in any court and have not became (sic) a public record. The only reason Leah has a copy is to help work with TML and our insurance attorneys."

While TOSHA can protect the identity of a complainant or whistle-blower, typically the name would be redacted from a document and the rest of the information released.  

Ridley said privately after the meeting the documents would eventually become public, but under the Tennessee Open Records Act law, the following items are listed as confidential records that can be protected according to the Municipal Technical Advisory Service. There is nothing about “attorney-client privilege.

In general, city employees’ personnel records and most other city documents are subject to public inspection under the Tennessee Public Records Act. Some exceptions that affect local government are:

• Employee assistance program records that apply to counseling or referrals for mental health, marriage, alcoholism, and similar personal problems may remain confidential if they are maintained separately from personnel records. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(d).
• Personal cell phone and home phone numbers, bank account information, Social Security numbers, and driver’s license information (except when driving is part of or incidental to the employee’s job), emergency contact information, residential street addresses and personal, non-government issued email addresses of applicants, current and former employees are confidential; the same information for the employees’ immediate family members and household members is confidential. T.C.A. § 10-7-504 (f)(1).
• City hospital medical records and records of patients receiving medical treatment paid for by a municipality are confidential. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(1). (The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that all employee medical records be confidential and kept in a separate file.)
• Library records identifying a person who requested or obtained specific materials are not open to the public. T.C.A. § 10-8-102.
• Financial statements filed by cities as evidence of their ability to pay workers’ compensation claims are confidential. T.C.A. § 50-6-405(b)(3).
• Certain "books, records, and other materials in the possession of the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter which relate to any pending or contemplated legal or administrative proceeding in which the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter may be involved" are not open to public inspection. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(5).
• All files, reports, records, and papers relative to child abuse investigations are confidential. T.C.A. § 37-1-612.
• The Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure contains a section that "does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal state documents made by the district attorney general or other state agents or law enforcement officers in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case or of statements made by state witnesses or prospective state witnesses" (Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2)). This rule is an exception to the rule of discovery, which requires the state to allow a "defendant to inspect and copy or photograph any relevant written or recorded" statements, records, objects, etc., that are material to the defense’s preparation (Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)). [1]
• Arnold v. City of Chattanooga, 19 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (permission to appeal denied June 19, 2000) holds that a city attorney’s work product prepared in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial is confidential and is not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
• Unpublished phone numbers possessed by emergency communications districts are confidential until there is a contract to the contrary between the telephone customer and the service provider, T.C.A. § 10-7-504(e).
• Information about law enforcement officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, correction officers, dispatchers and paramedics who seek help for job-related critical incidents through group counseling sessions led by mental health professionals is privileged and is not subject to disclosure unless the privilege is waived. This includes all memoranda, work notes, work products, case files, and related communication. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a) (13)(A).
• Certain taxpayer information, returns, reports, and audits are confidential. T.C.A. § 67-2-108, T.C.A. § 67-4-722, T.C.A. § 67-5-402, T.C.A. § 67-1-1702.
• The identity of an informant who provides information resulting in an eviction for violation of drug laws or for prostitution is confidential. T.C.A. § 66-7-107.
• Home and work telephone numbers, addresses, social security numbers, and any other information that could be used to locate an individual who has a protection or restraining order are not (utility) and may not be (other governmental entities) open to the public. Such an individual may request this protection and present a copy of the order to the record keeper of the municipality or utility. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(15) and T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(16).
• Any information pertaining to the location of a domestic violence center or rape crisis center is confidential when the director requests such in writing. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(17).
• Security codes, plans, passwords, combinations, and computer programs used to protect electronic information and government property are confidential. T.C.A. § 10-7-504.
• Filing documents required in order of protection cases, except forms required by the courts, are confidential but may be transmitted to the TBI, emergency response agency, or law enforcement agency. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(16).
• Records that would allow a person to identify areas of vulnerability of a utility service provider or that would permit unlawful disruption of utility service are confidential. Documents relative to costs of utility property or its protection are not confidential, but confidential information must be redacted when the record is made public. This provision does not limit access to these records by other government agencies performing official functions nor does it preclude any governmental agency from allowing public access to these records in performing official functions. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(21).
• Contingency plans for responding to terrorist acts are confidential. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(21).
• Credit card numbers, social security numbers, tax identification numbers, financial institution account numbers, burglar alarm codes, security codes, consumer-specific energy and water usage data except for aggregate monthly billing information, and access codes of utilities are confidential. This information must be redacted when possible when the rest of the record is made public. The requester must pay the costs of redaction. T.C.A. § 10-7-504(a)(20).
• Photographs and recordings of juveniles by law enforcement officers are confidential. T.C.A. §§ 37-1-154 and 37-1-155.
• Financial records filed for income verification under the local option property tax freeze are confidential. T.C.A. § 67-5-705.
• Competitive sealed proposals are confidential until the intent to award is announced. Then the proposals will be open to public inspection. T.C.A. § 12-3-1207.
• Records addressing marketing strategies and strategic plans of public hospitals are confidential until seven days before the strategies and plans are adopted. T.C.A. § 68-11-238.

City attorney refuses to release documents concerning TOSHA complaint on Tuesday Special Called agenda

We have requested copies of documents involved in a Tennessee Occupational Health and Safety Administration complaint that comes before the Crossville city council Tuesday, November 7 during a special called meeting at 5:00 PM.  According to information released with the agenda, the Tennessee Attorney General has sent complaint concerning the matter that was initially presented by TOSHA previously.  

Crossville city attorney

Will Ridley

The response from the city attorney Will Ridley concerning the media request is as follow:

"Both are attorney client privilege and neither should be released. Neither are a document of record in any court and have not became (sic) a public record. The only reason Leah has a copy is to help work with TML and our insurance attorneys."

Multiple sources say the original TOSHA complaint concerned the water resources department.

An executive session was originally announced for last Friday but later canceled and the item moved to the Tuesday called meeting agenda.  

City Attorney finds Ouster Complaint allegations do not rise to level to warrant investigation

 A letter from Crossville city attorney Will RIdley has been received by city manager Greg Wood concerning the ouster complaint document filed by Cumberland County resident Steve Frank late last month.

Ridley's letter states that he has "reviewed the complaint, exhibits and conducted a preliminary investigation into the matters asserted.  I do not find that the conduct complained of meets the requirements set out in the statute.  Therefore I decline to conduct a formal investigation or to start a proceeding for general ouster."

Ridley cites the wording from the Tennessee Code Annotated section 8-47-101 saying in his letter, "The grounds for ouster are very specific and set out in tennessee law as follows:
who shall knowingly or willfully neglect to perform any duty enjoined upon such officer by any of the laws of the state, or who shall in any public place be in a state of intoxication produced by strong drink voluntarily taken, or who shall engage in any form of illegal gambling, or who shall commit any act constituting a violation of any penal statute involving moral turpitude, shall forfeit such office and shall be ousted from such office in the manner hereinafter provided."

Ridley's letter adds that "complaints lodged against the marketing director are adminstrative and outside the scope of his job as city attorney."

Crossville city attorney

Will Ridley

On again, off again shooting park is back on again after Crossville city council approval

The Crossville city council reversed its stance on selling property for use as a shooting sports park and the controversial project is back moving forward following a special called meeting Tuesday evening.

Discussion on a proposed shooting sports park first became public 20 months ago and was discussed at city council meetings as the group trying to build the facility were seeking property to locate the park on from the city.

Mayor James Mayberry addresses called meeting

That property was a portion of land purchased over 20 years ago and used for a few years as a city run landfill. After the landfill closed the land set quietly until this project cropped up. The project was discussed, received support from the previous council and occasionally came back for discussion as funding was committed and new details emerged.

Things began moving at full speed late last year with work on a contract to sell a portion of the city's original property to a nonprofit group formed to operate the facility. A sales contract was approved by council at their February meeting and a small but vocal group of residents who lived near the proposed location began to complain about who the proposed park could effect their homes.

In March, the contract was rescinded by the council at a special called meeting shortly before the sale was to close under the original contract and additional meetings were held along with a shooting demonstration at the property this past Saturday. Sources say that additional work by new city manager Greg Wood and changes to the contract by city attorney Will Ridley moved the project back to council consideration.

Crossville city attorney WIll Ridley

explains contract changes.

One change that was made to the original deal is that the remaining portion of the property along Albert Frye Road that will only be used for quiet activities such as air guns, archery and education programs. This will create a buffer between the shooting park and the closest property beside the shooting park.

The city had already planned to retain an area along Albert Frye Road for possible future development and possible industrial use. The city also retains the portion of the property previously used as a landfill and other property along the southern edge of the original property purchased by the city.

Video of full council meeting

The discussion opened at the special called meeting Tuesday night and Mayor James Mayberry moved to approve the new contract prepared by city attorney Will Ridley with the changes. Mayberry's motion received a second from councilman Scot Shanks.

Mr. Ridley explained about the changes to the original agreement that restricted the use of the 13.86 acres in the Northwest corner of the property bordered on the north by Albert Frye Rd and on the east by private property that includes a residential cabin.

Ridley said that the property would revert to the city if funding is not secured by December 31, 2016 and that funding must be state of federal money.

Other provisions include that the city council will have the right to appoint two members of the Crossville Shooting Park, Inc. board and the city will not charge for any building or other permits required in the development of the project.

Councilman J. H. Graham said he and some of the property owners in the area of the park had concerns about the road into the site and the turn off from Peavine road and felt the road should be brought up to standards of the Crossville Regional Planning commission. Graham felt there should be a 50 foot right of way and a 3 lane mouth on the end of the road.

Councilman J. H. Graham talks about Albert Frye Rd.

Mr. Ridley said the road was a county road and and he didn't feel the city could force the county to make such improvements.

In order to hear from shooting park board representative James Wattenbarger the council had to approve a motion to waive the rules against public comment as council member Danny Wyatt had a question for him. The discussion included noise abatement by putting rubber mulch into the walls separating the shooting stations and while that was more expensive, it would help with noise. When asked about the road, Wattenbarger said the road to the Carroll Co. park was smaller and longer then Albert Frye.

Also discussed was night shooting and Wattenbarger said generally shooting ranges operate to dusk and that time varies with the calendar. He pointed out in summer that the time of dusk was later. The facility will not be set up for night shooting either.

Property owner Harold Stryker suggested making the entrance to the range come off of Chestnut Hill Road saying it was a better road and could handle more traffic but no action was taken on that suggestion.

The vote on the motion to approve the new contract was unanimous with a comment from Mr. Graham saying that he was strongly opposed to approving a contract without road improvements in it but added, I am for the shooting range and I vote aye.”

Residents near proposed Shooting Sports Park pushing to have facility moved from Albert Frye Rd.

Even though the Crossville city council had completed the scheduled agenda, a number of people remained in the meeting room and Mayor James Mayberry recognized council member Pamala Harris “to deal with some old business.”

Harris talked about the Shooting Sports Park, a topic the council has discussed several times over the last 18 months and said there were some property owners and residents around the old city land fill property proposed for the location of the facility who had some comments. Harris said she had gotten a number of calls about the proposed project and several had concerns about how the facility would affect their homes and property near it. For the next 30 minutes, property owners and representatives of the shooting sports park organization discussed the proposed operation, possible noise issues and other concerns.

City engineer Tim Begley, standing left, shows council and others a map

of the property for the Shooting Sports Park.  

Residents in the area expressed concern about the noise level from the operation of a shooting facility and concern about the fact that none of them had been contacted by either the city, the county or the organization that is proposing the facility.

The city council first heard about the proposed facility some 18 months ago in June 2015 when Cumberland Co. Mayor Kenneth Carey shared the possibility of the facility at a council work session. Carey told council that the majority of the funding would come from the TWRA and could be a draw for tourists and visitors to the community as well as hosting possible tournaments.

After a year, the topic came back to the council and more details were shared including a firm request for use of property between I-40 and Albert Frye Rd. that the city once used a portion of as a landfill. Final plans became clearer late last year when the topic was against raised at council meetings and the council approved the transfer of a portion of the city's 217 acres to the not for profit corporation that will operate the park during their regular meeting in February.

The blue area is the city's property where the shooting park will be located.

The red circles indicate where the closest houses are.

During all these discussions a few objections to the project were brought up, mainly about competition with private businesses. Former councilman Pete Souza had suggested a public hearing on the project be held but none took place. The city's involvement in the program is through the donation of the property and a small supporting grant applied for from the state.

The group opposing the project said they had some 40 signatures on a petition seeking a new location for the project. Their concerns include noise that would not allow them to use their porches or yards and the effect it could have on their property values. There was discussion about the possible number of shots that might be fired in a day and James Wattenbarger said that the numbers being shared were far above what was expected though he did say any tournaments would include a high number of shots.

At one point, mayor James Mayberry pointed out that zoning in the community would possibly solve some of the kinds of problems being discussed. Those opposed felt the facility should be located in the Catoosa Wildlife area but were told that TWRA had turned down that option.

City attorney Will Ridley said that the city had signed a binding contract on the land transfer but the property had not yet been conveyed. Ridley added that if both sides agreed it could possibly be delayed.

Councilman J. H. Graham asked when the next meeting of the non-profit board would be held saying he felt people needed information on the noise level and number of shots to be fired as the numbers from both sides were substantially different.

Mr. Wattenbarger, who identified himself as a member of the non-profit's board said he had been to the Carroll Co. facility and their shooting park was in the industrial park but there were “hundreds of homes within one mile of the facility.”

Questions about the organization to receive the property were raised and Mr. Ridley said he had received a copy of the organizations state charter and other documents before the agreement was signed.

A statement from the group opposing is expected to be made at the public comment time during the March 14 council meeting along with the presentation of their petition.

Story on Shooting Sports Park from June 2015

Contract for sale of property for Shooting Sports Park approved by city council

Crossville city council approved a sales agreement to transfer part of the city's Dorton area landfill property to the non-profit group that will operate the new shooting sports park once it is built.

City attorney Will Ridley and county officials have been working on the agreement for several weeks to try and put the deal together to allow the project to move forward with an attraction that proponents hope will attract tournaments and and shooters from Middle and East Tennessee.

City council video discussion on shooting sports park property sale

Council,man Danny Wyatt moved that the contract be approved with the provision that if the funding for the project is not received by December 31, 2017 that the property will revert back to the city. The contact already included a provision that should the property stop being used as a shooting park that the property would also revert back to the ownership of the city.

Wyatt's motion was supported by councilwoman Pamala Harris. With no calls for any further discussion, the motion was approved with four votes in favor. Councilman J. H. Graham was absent from the meeting.

The city charter requires a 30 day advertising period before the sale can become final. The total acreage to be transferred is 146 of the approximately 218 acres originally purchased by the city for use as a landfill. Some 37 acres was used for a landfill but was closed many years ago and remains under the auspices of the state environmental department for monitoring.

The shooting sports park has been under discussion for almost 2 years with funding coming from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency using money comes from the federal excise tax on ammunition.  

Previous stories:

December work session on Shooting Sports Park

First discussion by city council of the Shooting Sports Park in 2015

Co Mayor Carey talks to council July 2016 

City Council approves health insurance for city judge and city attorney

UPDATE: According to interim city manager Steve Hill, Blue Cross has approved insurance for both positions to be added to the group health plan and the insurance will be effective January 2017. 

The only city council action from the December regular meeting that was not a unanimous vote was the proposal to provide health insurance benefits to city judge Ivy Gardner and city attorney Will Ridley.

The matter was brought to the council by member Danny Wyatt who moved that the resolution be adopted to request that the city's health insurance provider consider the city judge and city attorney as a special category for health insurance coverage. Wyatt said that if the motion passes, the city won't know if they are accepted until the company gets back to the city.

Wyatt's motion received a second from council member Pamala Harris.

Council member Scot Shanks asked for clarification about the action saying that currently only employees who worked over 30 hours a week were eligible for health insurance. Mayor James Mayberry said that the decision to cover or not would be up to Blue Cross.

Crossville city attorney Will Ridley

City attorney Will Ridley said that the resolution classifies the two positions differently then any other contract appointed employee or board member. Ridley stressed that the action would affect him but he was not lobbying one way or the other on the council's vote.

Mayor Mayberry said, “I've seen the attorney's bills and I think he is doing fine and can afford his own insurance.” Mayberry continued that there were several who applied for the judge position and a pay scale was posted at the time. He also pointed out that the pay had been increased with the new new term appointment from $15,000 a year to $20,000 a year.

Crossville city judge Ivy Gardner

“I think the compensation is satisfactory,” added Mayberry, “and I'm not supporting this.”

A roll call vote was called with Mayberry and Shanks voting opposed to the measure. Council members Wyatt, Harris and Graham voted in favor and the motion passed.

Video of health insurance discussion