Hale, citizens speak about amendments, vote legality
While amendments to Knox County’s Growth Policy Plan got approval from Farragut Board of Mayor and Alderman in a 3-2 vote Thursday night, April 11, as expected, Alderman David White — one of the two no votes — said rescinding the March 28 vote against the amendments isn’t legal.
Town attorney Tom Hale responded in detail to defend the April 11 re-vote opportunity.
Meanwhile, citizens on both sides of the amendment issue spoke during the meeting.
White, Hale disagree
White was the lone dissenting vote against approving the minutes for the Wednesday, April 3, special-called meeting. He asked Hale to give a legal opinion on whether the motion to rescind should have been on the April 11 meeting agenda since it was voted on during a special meeting — and whether that action violated the Town’s charter.
“There is a provision in the charter of the Town … (that) has to do with the duties of the mayor,” the Town attorney said.
One of those duties is “the mayor may call special meetings of the Board on adequate notice to the Board (with) adequate public notice and … shall state the matters to be considered at the special meeting and the actions of the Board shall be limited to those matters submitted,” Hale added.
“As I understand it, Mr. White is objecting to the fact that the motion was made at the Board’s last meeting to place the motion to rescind and, No. 2, the renewal of the motion to approve the Growth Plan as amended on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. We didn’t vote on anything last week related to the motion to rescind or renewal of the motion, but there was a request made to put it on the agenda for tonight, and there was a motion made to do that.”
Hale’s stand was: “The rules and regulations of the Town do not require a vote of this body to create the agenda or to place items on the agenda for this Board to consider … The creation of a meeting agenda is placed in the hands of the Town administrator.
“So, if we assume the action of approving the motion to put these items on the agenda tonight was not an appropriate motion, what’s the harm?” He asked. “In my view, no foul, no harm.”
Moreover, “In spite of whether or not the motion was made and/or approved following our normal procedure, which does not require or involve the Board voting on anything, but items were placed on the agenda like they normally would be, they were properly advertised and they’ve been noticed to the public,” he said. “As evidence of that, all of you are here.
“It would be a disservice to you to show up tonight having gotten notice of this meeting and, for some reason, we didn’t act and put this off to a later time,” Hale said to White. “My opinion is there is nothing illegal . …”
“The only discussion I would have, Mr. Mayor, is although I highly respect attorney Hale’s opinion, I seriously disagree with him … I think the law is specific,” White said. “It really shouldn’t be here. It really shouldn’t be voted on here again because there’s definitely a violation of the charter.”
Founder is critical
A Town founder, Eric Johnson spoke to the gathering while recalling Board meetings of the past when, after the meeting ended, “(you) walked away with respect for everyone; meeting attendees behaved.”
However, “Alderman White, serves more than 10,000 people on the South Ward of Farragut, yet he only represents a few dozen people with completely negative attitudes ...,” Johnson added.
Moreover, “... Alderman White owes the county mayor and County Commissioners who attended last week’s meeting an apology for his behavior ,” he said, further commenting that White “has cast a shadow over our community. … It’s time for Alderman White to step down.”
Citizens opposing
Residents spoke at the meeting in opposition to the motion to reconsider and approve the amendments.
“I continue to urge you to reject the plan, not because it is all bad but because it could be so much better than it is,” said Gerald Thornton, who represents a chapter of the Sierra Club. “What really should happen is the Growth Policy Planning Committee should be reconvened to revise the comprehensive plan and the Growth Policy Plan to provide for a more sustainable future for all of Knox County.”
“You are in a position to affect real change in how future road improvements are handled,” Michael Wilson said to BOMA members. “The only way for you to do so is to include new language in the Growth Policy Plan.
“That language should require failing or now failing levels of service be addressed and remedied during the new development approval process,” he added. “We cannot continue to approve developments and neglect the needed road improvements.”
Daniel Sanders also spoke, saying both the rescinding of the March 28 vote and the reconsideration of that vote “are not valid to be on your agenda.”
“The state law that establishes the requirement for growth policy planning doesn’t allow you to reconsider a rejection,” Sanders said. “Tennessee Code Annotated 6-580-104, Sub 5, states clearly that ‘if any municipality rejects the recommendation of the coordinating committee, then the municipality shall submit its objections and reasons, therefore, for resolution …”
“The word ‘shall’ is important because it indicates a mandatory provision of state law,” he added, pointing out that regardless of procedures for placing items on the agenda, the Board “must follow state law.”
Another speaker, who also expressed opposition to reconsidering the amendments, asked the Board to table its vote for a later date.
Mike Mitchell said the vote puts a burden on the people to hire an attorney and take the matter to court. He recommended sending the matter to mediation instead.
Supporting citizen
Among citizens voicing their opinions at the meeting, Bob Cross said he appreciated the re-vote on the amendments.
“I’ve met a lot of really good people within the county who have worked on this for many, many years,” he said. “A lot of effort has been put into (the amendments).
“Growth is like a river,” Cross added. “If you don’t have a plan, it kind of goes where it wants to go.”
Final BOMA thoughts
While Mayor Ron Williams and Vice Mayor Louise Povlin again voted yes to the amendments, as they did March 28, Alderman Scott Meyer voted to rescind his March 28 vote, and approved the amendments.
Aldermen Drew Burnette joined White to vote “no,” as both did March 28.
“My position hasn’t changed since March 28,” Povlin said.
“The transportation plan is only showing minor improvements, leaving residents in a tough spot,” Burnette said about voting no.
As such, he also objected to the removal of a traffic study requirement from the plan, which he expressed as a prudent necessity.
However, “There are absolutely parts of this updated policy that are both positive for the Town of Farragut and for Knox County,” Burnette said. “I’m very grateful for that.”
Still, this South Ward (II) alderman voted against the amendments because of his concerns about growth in Northshore and the Choto area, as it “is at a breaking point in regard to traffic and safety,” he said. “… The current growth cannot support the traffic and activity that’s already there.”
