Public commenters and several commissioners pressed Sumner County officials to preserve a historic home on Hunters Lane that William and Martha Brown left to the county with a $500,000 restricted bequest, while the General Operations Committee debated whether to keep the existing ad hoc restoration committee or reconstitute it with additional members.

The house and the restricted $500,000 bequest were described repeatedly during public comment as the central legal and practical facts driving the debate. Cynthia McLeod, a neighbor who presented copies of the warranty deed and will, read language saying the bequest “shall be in a restricted fund held by the county in a separate account, and used solely for the purposes of the establishment, production, onboard support, and maintenance of the William And Martha Grama Park.”

Why it matters: the property sits adjacent to local schools, residents and descendants say the house has historic value tied to local and national history, the county accepted funds with preservation conditions, and speakers said the house is deteriorating and needs immediate attention to avoid further loss.

Speakers at the committee meeting gave consistent accounts that the building is in poor condition and urged action. Tommy Laban, who identified himself from Jackal Island, said, “Right is right, and, we need to do right on this and preserve this house. Honor Mister Brown’s wishes.” Michael Clark, another nearby resident, described boarded windows, vegetation growth inside the yard and said the county “accepted the money; when they accepted the money, they accepted the terms of that parcel, and that was preserved the house.” Stacy Moss, a district resident, said the house “is not only an important part of our local history” and urged officials to move forward.

County staff and some commissioners described planning steps already under way and highlighted open technical questions. A speaker identifying himself as involved with the ad hoc group said the county’s finance department was reworking an RFP and expected it to appear in the local paper “next Thursday,” beginning an approximately four-week process before architects would visit the house. That same speaker said county staff had received assessments and that the county had an existing estimate and a partial allocation of funds (approximately $5,000–$10,000 cited for preliminary items) from within a larger $587,000 pool referenced for this and related work.

Commissioners debated two procedural paths. Commissioner Mansfield and others argued to continue the current ad hoc committee, noting members had already done substantial research and outreach. Commissioner Jones, while supportive of restoring the house, argued for involving the school system — a co-owner — and additional participants so the co-owner’s perspectives would be represented. Jones said, “There is a park there. The centerpiece now has to be looked at,” and urged including school board representation in planning discussions.

The committee’s legal advisor advised that to extend an ad hoc committee beyond its original term the board could reconstitute it with explicit duration language, and to preserve existing work it would be acceptable to leave the committee intact under status quo until the board formally reconstituted it. Several commissioners raised programmatic and technical concerns that would affect scope and cost: whether to pursue historic designation (which some warned could greatly increase total cost), whether grants should be used (some speakers recommended avoiding historic grant restrictions to keep the budget near current estimates), and whether environmental or health hazards had been fully tested. Commissioner Mansfield specifically requested mold and other hazardous-material testing be completed before committing to a full scope of work.

On environmental and permitting questions, one commenter who said he had worked with county staff reported TDEC (the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had confirmed the property is not within a riparian buffer that would prevent restoration, a point that county staff also said had been checked.

Discussion also covered budget and procurement steps. A county official said the RFP to select an architect and produce construction drawings was being finalized; after an architect’s assessment the county would return to an RFP for a construction contractor. Commissioners and commenters estimated current restoration-related planning cost estimates in the mid-six-figure range, and one commissioner quoted an approximate bid figure of about $507,000 for the project as a planning reference (commissioner said the number was an approximate bid and raised concern about additional unbudgeted costs such as roof replacement, HVAC, and unexpected hazardous-material remediation).

No final disposition of the property’s restoration scope was taken during the committee discussion recorded in the transcript. Multiple motions and amendments about the ad hoc committee’s makeup and duration were made and debated at length; the committee heard several proposals (status-quo continuation, reconstitution with school representatives, and other permutations) and members called for additional technical reports, clearer budget estimates, and completion of hazardous-material testing before committing to final scope and procurement.

The next steps described on the record: county staff said the RFP to select an architect would be released imminently; staff and members requested additional assessments (mold/asbestos testing and an architect’s scope & cost estimate) before the committee adopts a final restoration plan. Several speakers asked the committee to preserve the existing ad hoc committee’s institutional memory while those assessments proceed.

Ending: The committee’s record shows continued public interest and active internal debate about committee structure, technical assessments and procurement sequencing. Commissioners scheduled follow-up discussion and asked staff to return with architect scope estimates, test results for hazardous materials, and a timeline for the RFP process.