Commission backs Morristown capital outlay note for solid waste board with possible parity exposure

5510275 · July 25, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Hamlin County approved Resolution 25-17 approving the issuance and sale of a general obligation capital outlay note by the city of Morristown for the solid waste board; a public commenter sought a county attorney opinion on county exposure if the city defaults.

Hamlin County commissioners approved Resolution 25-17, which authorizes the county to approve the issuance and sale of a general obligation capital outlay note by the city of Morristown for use by the solid waste board, the commission’s finance report said during the July 2025 meeting. A member of the public, Gwen Holden, asked during public comments whether County Attorney Capps had issued an opinion on the legality of the city issuing that note and whether the county would be responsible if Morristown failed to pay. Holden asked the attorney to provide that opinion before the county voted. County Attorney Capps told the commission he had not been asked to deliver an opinion to the commission and that he had attended the solid waste board meeting in his role as attorney for the solid waste board. Without researching the issue, Capps said his tentative view was that because the solid waste board is a mutual-benefit association between the city and county, the city’s issuance of the note was likely permissible. He cautioned that was an unresearched opinion and recommended formal research if the commission wanted a definitive legal opinion. During committee discussion, officials clarified that the solid waste board is jointly governed by City of Morristown and Hamlin County and that debt for the board is shared in parity; if the note issuer defaulted, the county could share liability under parity arrangements. Commissioners asked for clarification about whether the county would be responsible in the event of default; an official responded that parity sharing could require county exposure in a default. The commission moved, seconded and voted to approve the resolution on the agenda (Resolution 25-17). The transcript records the motion passing but does not record a roll-call tally in the minutes provided. The public comment and questions about the county attorney’s formal written opinion were raised on the record before the vote; the county attorney did not provide a written opinion to the full commission during the meeting.