Rutherford County commission approves resolution to acquire 52.67 acres for new public safety campus after heated debate

The Rutherford County Board of Commissioners on July 16 voted 12–9 to approve a resolution authorizing the county to acquire roughly 52.67 acres near the Correctional Work Center for a new public safety and justice campus, and to negotiate or initiate eminent domain proceedings if voluntary purchase is not possible.

The resolution, read aloud by County Attorney Nick, authorizes the county mayor and other officials to take steps to acquire the property for a campus that the resolution describes as potentially including a new jail, sheriff’s offices, emergency communications, training and related public safety facilities. The resolution also authorizes the county to tender or deposit to court an amount within the range of $14,000,000 to $18,000,000 as an estimate of just compensation when seeking possession, with a final amount to be determined by appraisal or further information.

Opponents urged caution at the meeting. Amanda Hernandez, a member of the public who spoke during the public comment period, said she opposed the proposed eminent domain acquisition and raised technical and community concerns: “I am here in opposition to the proposed property acquisition off South Church Street via eminent domain,” Hernandez said, citing the presence of wetlands that would require surveys and coordination with the Tennessee Natural Heritage Program and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. She also raised proximity concerns for Riverdale High School and asked whether adequate public notice had been given.

Joshua Denton, attorney for the landowners, told commissioners the market evidence did not match the range in the resolution. Denton said the owners received dozens of offers this spring, some above $35 million, that the county submitted a letter of intent at $23,782,000 in April and that the property is under contract with a purchase price approaching $40 million. “The numbers that are in this resolution are far below what the county has already proposed,” Denton said.

Supporters of the resolution, including Mayor Joe Carr and several commissioners, cited multiple studies and site constraints that led the jail‑study group to prioritize the parcel, noting overcrowding and long‑term operational problems at the Rutherford County Adult Detention Center. Mayor Carr summarized a multi‑year study coordinated with the Tennessee Corrections Institute and CTAS and said officials face a limited planning window to address urgent facility needs. “We have a choice,” Mayor Carr said, describing options to renovate the existing facility or to build a new campus adjacent to existing correctional services.

Architect Bart Klein presented a comparative analysis during the meeting showing that while renovating the existing jail might have a somewhat lower front‑end cost, building new could yield operational savings and fewer long‑term complications; he characterized the up‑front cost difference at roughly 10 percent in his analysis. County staff and legal counsel emphasized the legal and financial uncertainties inherent in condemnation: the county’s deposit to court does not cap a jury’s determination of just compensation, and a higher award could require the county to pay additional amounts and interest.

Commissioners debated a motion to postpone the vote until the September commission meeting; that amendment failed. After extended discussion and a roll‑call vote, the commission approved the condemnation resolution. The meeting record shows the commission then advanced related funding actions: an initial bond resolution establishing borrowing authorization (discussed as up to $360 million in capacity for project categories, not an immediate borrowing of that full amount) and a budget amendment to set aside $18.5 million to cover the deposit and related initial costs.

Next steps described by staff include preparing draft resolutions and additional financial materials for the budget committee, pursuing any negotiated purchase opportunities, and, if necessary, initiating condemnation filings and appraisals. County staff said the deposit figure in court would be set based on further appraisal work when the county files.

The commission’s approval clears a procedural hurdle but does not itself finalize a purchase price or design details for the planned campus; those steps require subsequent administrative and commission approvals, further due diligence and potential litigation. The county attorney’s office emphasized that the tender/deposit range is an estimate and that the county reserves the right to contest valuations in court.

What’s next: staff said draft resolutions and financial projections will be provided to the budget committee in the coming weeks; depending on timing and additional analyses, the commission could return with further formal votes to set final land acquisition terms and design scope.