This page is written for the members of the Loudon County Commission — and published where every resident can read it, because that's how this whole effort is meant to work: in the open, with no surprises for anyone.
What this is — and isn't
This is a proposal from a candidate. It is not an act, position, or commitment of the Loudon County Commission or any government body. Nothing in the framework takes effect unless and until this commission debates it and votes on it, in public. If District 2 sends me to the commission on August 6, this is the work I intend to bring — shaped first by the county mayor's office and by every commissioner who wants a hand in it.
What the resolution would ask of the commission
- Authorize the county mayor to negotiate a replacement interlocal agreement with Lenoir City under T.C.A. § 5-1-113 and § 6-58-104(a)(6), built on the three-tier framework.
- Request that the coordinating committee reconvene — the growth-plan process T.C.A. § 6-58-104 places under the county mayor's leadership — to begin a comprehensive update of the county's growth plan within 90 days.
- Reaffirm the county's commitment to the plan-of-services cooperation and notice provisions of T.C.A. § 6-51-104 that already exist in state law.
And one guarantee worth underlining: the negotiated agreement comes back to this commission for approval before it takes effect. The resolution opens a conversation; only a later vote of this body closes one.
What the county gains
- Consent rights where the stakes are highest. Territory outside the urban growth boundary — the county's planned growth and rural areas — could not be annexed without county consent or a vote of the people who live there (T.C.A. § 6-58-111(c)(2)).
- A formal voice inside the boundary. A 60-day coordinated review for territory inside the UGB but outside defined corridors — the county on the record, every time.
- The numbers before the vote. A fiscal impact analysis — county tax revenue, school enrollment, road maintenance, E-911 service — accompanies future annexations in the review tiers, before they proceed.
- A current growth plan. The county's foundational planning document, brought up to date for the first time since roughly 2000, with the county at the head of the table.
- A durable, scheduled relationship with the city — a term capped at seven years and a built-in review at year five.
Fair questions, straight answers
Doesn't Tier A give up county authority in those corridors?
Less than it might appear. Since 2014, Tennessee law (Public Chapter 707) has required property-owner consent or a referendum for annexation — cities can no longer annex anyone by ordinance against their will. In Tier A corridors, where growth is already concentrated along existing city limits and utilities, the framework adds a guaranteed 30-day written notice the county doesn't have today. In exchange, the county gains consent rights in Tier C and a formal comment window in Tier B — genuine additions to the county's standing, not trades against it.
Why now?
Because the state's own advisory commission on intergovernmental relations (TACIR) has recommended that counties reconvene their coordinating committees and review growth plans at regular intervals — and because our neighbors are already doing it. Knox County amended its plan in 2024. Dickson County's commission ratified a revised plan unanimously this April, with every one of its cities ratifying alongside. Growth along Highway 321 and Highway 11 isn't waiting.
What does it cost?
The coordinating committee is a statutory process, not a new agency. Where professional planning support helps, the cost can be shared among the governments at the table — Maury County and its cities signed an interlocal agreement to split the bill for their countywide plan, and are doing a new plan together right now. The resolution would authorize negotiating that kind of cost-share, with any actual spending subject to this commission's appropriation.
What if it doesn't work out?
The agreement carries a term of no more than seven years — short by national standards, where cooperative boundary agreements commonly run twenty — with a scheduled review at year five. It binds only what both elected bodies vote to bind, it is prospective only, and it has no effect on any pending matter between the governments.
We'd be in good company
Knox County (growth plan amended 2024, with Knoxville and Farragut), Blount County (whose coordinating-committee work with Alcoa and Maryville helped clear the site for the Smith & Wesson headquarters), Williamson County (full update in 2024), Maury County (cost-shared countywide planning), and Dickson County (unanimous ratification, April 2026) have all done versions of this work. Several states — Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Georgia — run statewide versions of county–city growth agreements. This is normal governance. It's simply ours to take up.
Questions, concerns, improvements?
This framework is meant to be shaped by the people who'll vote on it. I'd genuinely like to hear from you — commissioner, alderman, or resident.
Connect With Jason