Chairman Jeff Eversall said the commission had incorrectly been presented a resolution to "adopt" Plan Hamilton and sought legal clarity on whether that authority belongs to the planning commission.

The immediate question at the Hamilton County Board of Commissioners recessed meeting on June 25 was procedural: whether the county legislative body may "adopt" a regional comprehensive plan or only "approve" a plan that has first been adopted and certified by the planning commission. That uncertainty prompted a months-long, often heated discussion and left two related resolutions (625-59 and 625-60) tabled and effectively returned to the planning commission.

The issue matters because state law assigns the formal adoption and certification step to the planning commission, after which the legislative body may approve or amend the plan. County Attorney Varnell told the commission that "the state statute that requires a...regional comprehensive plan does not allow the legislative body to adopt something that has not already been certified by the planning commission." The statute cited in the meeting was the Tennessee Code Annotated provision directing planning commission adoption and certification (Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-3-304).

Commission debate was lengthy and divided. Commissioner Jack Mackey repeatedly asked whether older items that the commission previously voted on but that had not been adopted by the planning commission should be revisited. Attorney Varnell and attorney Barnell limited the scope to the specific statute and the two Plan Hamilton resolutions under discussion. "We're only talking about this particular resolution and this particular state statute," Barnell said.

Some commissioners said they believed the planning commission had sought guidance rather than formal action. Commissioner Dan Chauncey said RPA (the Regional Planning Agency) had instructed the planning commission to provide guidance, and that the planning commission then sent the item up for the county commission's view. Commissioner Chauncey said, "Planning commission is sent to this body for general guidance...They could adopt the plan next month and then we can vote to adopt it, amend it, whatever we do, but it's gotta be adopted by the planning commission first."

Commissioner John Shipley moved to remove the two Plan Hamilton items from the table so the commission could reconsider them; he argued removing them would "start brand new." Shipley's motion to take the items off the table was seconded by Commissioner Highlander but failed on a 6-5 roll-call vote (Yes: Baker, Beck, Highlander, Shipley, Eversall; No: Chauncey, Graham, Helton, Mackey, Sharp, Smith). With the motion failing, the two items remained on the table and, per staff and counsel, will be treated as dead for this body and returned to the planning commission for further action and state certification.

Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that tabling carries a defined effect under their procedures: if an item remains on the table through the next regular meeting, it dies. Commissioner Smith clarified that under Robert's Rules as modified by commission procedure, "if you table anything, you must intend to bring it off the table at the next regular meeting or it dies." Several commissioners who had voted to table said their intent had been to pause the resolution to refine it, not to kill it, and they voiced concern that the procedural result had not matched their expectations.

The commission did not adopt policy changes or amendments to Plan Hamilton at the recessed session. The formal outcome was procedural: the two resolutions related to Plan Hamilton remain tabled and will return to the planning commission for adoption/certification before reappearing before the county commission for approval or amendment.

Commissioners said they expect further coordination among the county legal staff, RPA counsel, and county planning staff to clarify process language and ensure future submissions comply with state law.

The commission moved on to other business after the planning discussion; no substantive change to Plan Hamilton was adopted by the county commission during the session.