County Technical Assistance Service says Public Building Authority By-Law Change was Wrong

The Public Building Authority (PBA) oversees the financially troubled Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center (MCCCC). You might remember that the PBA voted at its Sept. 14 meeting to amend the bylaws of the authority. Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service Writes Opinion Against Public Building Authority By-Law Change
The change allows for three members from Manchester and the other four can be from anywhere in the county. Before the change the City of Manchester had two, two representatives from Tullahoma, two represented rural Coffee County, and one member was designated at-large.
PBA Board Member Greg Sandlin, who represents Tullahoma, believes that the vote went against PBA bylaws. Sandlin believes the PBA is not a joint venture, rather, that is a singular county entity that oversees a joint venture.
According to a letter the University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) addressed to county Attorney Bob Huskey, Sandlin is correct. According to CTAS, based on their review of the information submitted, it is CTAS’s opinion that the Coffee County PBA was formed by Coffee County acting alone. The documents submitted to them included a resolution approving the application to form the Coffee County PBA adopted by the Coffee County Commission, dated September 5, 2000, as required under Tennessee law. There was no corresponding resolution adopted by the City of Manchester. On the same date, the Coffee County Commission passed a resolution appointing the initial board of directors. There is no mention of the City of Manchester’s participation in forming the Coffee County PBA in any of the documentation that was submitted to CTAS. Under the law, when two or more municipalities incorporate a PBA, ‘teach and every requisite pertaining to the application for incorporation, qualification of applicants, certificate of incorporation and amendment of certificate shall, as nearly as may be practicable, be incumbent in like manner upon each municipality joining in the creation of such public building authority.” In the documents submitted to CTAS they found no evidence of any action taken on the part of the City of
Manchester in the formation of the Coffee County PBA, and no mention of the City of Manchester in any of the documents evidencing the formation of the Coffee County PBA. Accordingly, it is their opinion that the county acted alone in forming the Coffee County PBA.
The appointment of the board of directors is governed by law, which provides, for PBA’s created by a single municipality, that the directors shall be appointed by the chief executive officer, in this case the county mayor, subject to confirmation of the governing body of the municipality, and they shall be so appointed that they shall hold office for staggered terms.” Accordingly, CTAS’s opinion that the Coffee County PBA should be appointed by the Coffee County Mayor with confirmation by the Coffee County Commission.
CTAS does not believe that the action of Coffee County and the City of Manchester, evidenced by an agreement dated November 21, 2000, to form a joint venture for the acquisition and operational funding of a conference center has any effect on the status of the Coffee County PBA as a single municipality PBA.