A request by Commissioner Anne Dunn to place a bond-referendum item on the next commission agenda produced a heated discussion and no immediate consensus. Dunn asked the commission to vote to put the proposed bond issuance for an indoor racket facility on the spring ballot so voters could decide directly whether the city should issue bonds to fund the project.

City attorney Kristin reviewed the legal mechanics: the board may (1) adopt an initial bond resolution describing the amount, project and maximum interest rate and then face a citizen petition process under Tennessee law (a petition by at least 10% of registered voters filed within 20 days of publication would trigger a referendum), or (2) adopt an election resolution from the outset directing the county election commission to hold a referendum (the resolution must contain the bond amount, project, interest cap and revenue pledge). If the commission seeks a May ballot referendum, staff said Feb. 10 is a target date to meet the statutory 75'to'90-day scheduling window for an election.

Commissioner Dunn urged the commission to "vote unanimously to make sure this referendum is on our ballot" and said a public vote would settle a contentious issue. Commissioner Little signaled support, and other commissioners expressed a desire to give residents a direct say. Commissioner Spears spoke against automatically seeking a referendum, arguing that elected officials are chosen to make such decisions and expressing concern that putting the issue on the ballot could set a precedent.

The exchange grew tense at times; commissioners debated whether the commission should intentionally avoid a bond issuance in order to prevent a referendum and whether public misinformation about the project had complicated the discussion. City staff and counsel repeatedly emphasized the legal mechanics and timeline for a bond referendum and noted that the city could provide fact-based explanatory materials but could not legally use city resources to advocate for one outcome over another.

Outcome and next steps: The briefing did not result in a four-vote direction to place the referendum on the next regular agenda, which Dunn had requested; staff said that placing a formal bond or election resolution on the agenda would require either a majority request in advance or an agenda item properly noticed for the next meeting. Counsel confirmed the Feb. 10 window would be the deadline for a commission resolution to meet the scheduling requirements for a May referendum.

Ending

The request to add a referendum vote to the next agenda was not finalized during the briefing; commissioners may revisit the matter at a subsequent meeting or direct staff to place a resolution on a future agenda.