Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Finance First Bank topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises legal concerns over Benton County's First Bank building purchase; asks commission to negotiate corrective resolution
Summary
Dr. Randy Shannon told the Benton County Commission that documents tied to the county’s purchase of the First Bank building indicate the transaction was effectively appropriated and that the original 08/19/2024 resolution should have required a two-thirds vote under the county’s private act.
Dr. Randy Shannon told the Benton County Commission he reviewed records related to the county’s purchase of the First Bank building and concluded the 08/19/2024 appropriation resolution should have required a two-thirds majority under the county’s private act.
Shannon described an amended appropriation resolution approved in August 2024 that he said shifted all payments to debt service over four equal annual payments. He told commissioners the county executed a loan agreement and a deed of trust dated Oct. 16, 2024, and that the state comptroller flagged the transaction in the county’s annual financial report under TCA 9-21-601 (issuance and sale of interest-bearing capital outlay notes).
Shannon said he believes the commission “failed to approve this resolution with [the] two-thirds majority” required by the private act and that the county mayor’s subsequent purchase may have violated the private act. He asked the commission to allow him to negotiate with the county attorney and mayor to draft and bring a corrective resolution to the commission in April or May.
Why it matters: Shannon’s presentation challenges the legal process the county used to finance or close on the First Bank property. He cited specific documentary evidence — a loan agreement, deed of trust recording (book 420, pages 157–168, per his statement), and a comptroller finding — and requested a negotiated remediation through a corrective resolution rather than immediate litigation.
Shannon referenced the county’s private act (adopted in 1939 and amended in 1999) and read from case-law definitions on appropriation. He said the comptroller’s review of the county’s indebtedness suggested the county had used available borrowing capacity. He asked commissioners to coordinate a corrective resolution with the mayor and county attorney so the matter could be formalized during an upcoming meeting.
The commission did not take immediate formal action on Shannon’s request during the meeting; Shannon asked to be permitted to negotiate with county officials and to return with a corrective resolution for a later meeting.
Ending: Shannon requested the commission place a corrective appropriation resolution on a future agenda after negotiation with county attorneys and the mayor. Commissioners did not oppose scheduling follow-up discussions but did not vote on any corrective measure at the meeting.
