Lewisburg council declines to act on proposal to dissolve Parks and Recreation advisory board after heavy public opposition

The Lewisburg City Council considered Resolution 24-1, a proposal to dissolve and suspend the City of Lewisburg Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, but no council member moved the measure and the item failed for lack of a motion.

The proposal drew more than a dozen speakers during the citizen input period, many of whom urged the council to retain the volunteer board and cited the board's role in fundraising, programming and community outreach. “This proposed resolution does the opposite of that and appears to be retaliatory in nature,” resident Jessica Limbert told the council, urging members to vote no. Several other speakers described decades of volunteer service and specific projects the board helped complete.

Why it mattered: The board advises the council and parks staff on programming, facilities and community engagement. City legal counsel told the council that, under Tennessee law, the council may dissolve an advisory board but would then assume the board’s duties and responsibilities. That would require the council to handle complaints, program oversight and long-term planning that the advisory board currently manages.

Details and arguments

Residents described the board as a low-cost source of expertise and volunteer labor. “The recreation board is a volunteer board…they want to make a difference in the community,” former council member Patty Parsons said, noting projects such as a new pavilion and repairs done without city expense. Multiple speakers described volunteer-driven improvements to parks, the golf course and youth programs.

Parks and recreation staff provided financial context. “Our 2024 operating budget is approximately $1,600,000. The revenue that was generated through our parks and recreation department was $567,000. We recovered 35% of our operating budget, which is well above the national average,” Parks staff member Carrie said, citing benchmarking and examples of grants and private donations that helped Rock Creek Park, the exploration station and other projects. She also said a price study recommended by the board led to roughly $150,000 in additional revenue over the last 18 months.

City Attorney (on record) explained the municipal code basis: he said Tennessee Code Annotated 11-24-103 provides several lawful frameworks for how a municipality may operate parks and recreation functions — either retaining council control, delegating limited advisory authority, or delegating operational authority subject to bylaws. He told the council that dissolving the advisory board would be legal but would transfer the board’s duties to the council.

Council response and outcome

Mayor Jim Bingham invited discussion and asked for a motion on Resolution 24-1. After a period of comment and staff explanation, no council member moved the resolution. “Do we have a motion? No motion, it fails,” the mayor said, and the council proceeded to other business. Because no motion was made, the advisory board remained in place pending any future formal action by the council.

What was not decided: Council members did not adopt a substitute plan or issue new direction that night to change the board’s role, nor did the council vote to begin a formal review process for all advisory boards. City legal counsel and parks staff noted that, if the council later chooses to dissolve the board, the council would need to schedule time to assume the board’s current duties or create an alternative structure.

Next steps and context

Speakers asked the council for clearer expectations, a formal job description for board members, and transparency about budgetary responsibilities. Parks staff noted that an updated parks master plan is required for certain state grant applications and that the advisory board assists with community engagement for those plans. Several residents said they will bring a formal complaint asking the council to consider removal proceedings for a council member under the city charter (resident Jessica Limbert said residents of Ward 3 had submitted a letter referencing Section 16 of the city charter); the council did not act on that request during the meeting.

Ending

With no motion made, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board remained intact. Residents and board members left the meeting urging the council to engage the community, adopt clearer board expectations and consider the volunteer contributions that residents said save the city money and support programming.