The Knox County Commission on Oct. 27 received public testimony from dozens of speakers and voted to postpone consideration of two related ordinances for 180 days, directing staff and commissioners to hold workshops and provide consolidated redlines for review. The two measures (O‑25‑10‑101 and O‑25‑10‑102) would change how the county verifies and disburses taxpayer funds to outside organizations; sponsors described the measures as strengthening transparency and auditability of county grants.

Opponents said portions of the proposed language would require nonprofits and some county contractors to certify they do not assist or serve people who are "residing illegally" in the county or to produce donor lists and external audits that could be costly or impractical for small organizations. Dozens of speakers — faith leaders, nonprofit directors and volunteers, legal experts and community members — urged commissioners to reject the immigration‑related certification language, calling it legally risky, morally problematic and operationally infeasible.

Public comment emphasized several recurring concerns: the burden and cost of external audits for small nonprofits, the practical difficulty of verifying immigration status (including asylum seekers, DACA recipients and persons with temporary protected status), and the chilling effect on humanitarian services if organizations had to act as status‑checks. Jonathan Haskell, a long‑time nonprofit leader, told commissioners, "This ordinance is anti‑gospel. ... By this standard, how we treat immigrant neighbors is not optional for us as Christians." Several speakers with direct service experience described how identifier and paperwork demands would prevent volunteers from serving the vulnerable.

Others called out a related item — a reported $102,482 grant to the Knox County Sheriff for immigration enforcement — as inappropriate use of county resources. Paul De Leon said the sheriff's 287(g) partnership has detained nonviolent people and framed the program as harmful to community trust; Michael O'Malley asked, rhetorically and sharply, "Was Judas paid in 30 pieces of silver or with $102,482?" Those comments underscored the public sensitivity around local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

After debate on the floor, Commissioner Hill moved to defer the ordinance for additional study; the substitute motion was amended from 90 to 180 days and passed by roll call, with the meeting minutes recording the final vote as 8 in favor, 3 opposed. Commissioners asked that administration and county law provide a consolidated, un‑redlined draft of both measures to the commission and schedule public workshops that include nonprofit stakeholders.

Clarifying points reflected during the hearing: sponsors said they seek greater fiscal accountability for taxpayer funds, that existing county grants are reimbursable and audited in practice, and that the county's finance team already requires reporting; opponents noted that state law already sets an audit threshold (external audits typically required at $1,000,000 annual revenue) and that the proposed audit mandate would impose costs (audits for mid‑sized nonprofits can run $12,000–$25,000). Commissioners directed staff to compile cost estimates, model enforcement steps, and legal analysis of potential First Amendment or other constitutional issues raised by the draft language.

Next steps: the commission asked the mayor's office, finance/grants staff and county law to assemble a redline showing all competing edits, to schedule workshops that allow nonprofit, faith‑based and legal stakeholders to testify, and to return recommendations to the full commission within the deferral period.