The Bradley County Urban Growth Boundary Committee voted Thursday to approve the proposed annexation interlocal agreement with the City of Cleveland after committee members debated language tied to annexation by referendum and a newly added section addressing annexation of roads.

The committee’s substitute motion to remove the phrase “outside its urban growth boundary” from sections 2(a) and 2(b) — which would have prevented referendum annexations both inside and outside the mapped growth boundary for the term of the agreement — did not receive a second and was not considered. "I offer a substitute motion to amend section 2 a and section 2 b of the proposed annexation interlocal agreement by striking outside the urban growth boundary from both sections," said Mr. Kreis, a committee member, during the discussion.

Why it matters: Committee members said the contested phrase is linked to how the Tennessee annexation-by-referendum statute has been used locally. Leaving the language unchanged means the agreement as written would clearly bar referendum-based annexations outside the mapped urban growth boundary for the agreement’s term; changing it, some members argued, would broaden the restriction and could alter how future annexation petitions proceed.

Committee discussion focused on two linked items: the text that governs referendum annexations and a new Section 5 that clarifies how and when the city may annex roads tied to property annexations. A committee member described the Section 5 addition as spelling out criteria for annexing a road when a contiguous or noncontiguous annexation includes a development that requires annexing the adjoining road, and gave Freewill Road as a local example.

County and city staff told the committee that plan-of-service reviews and intergovernmental coordination would remain part of the annexation process. Committee members asked whether the Tennessee code triggers annexation-by-referendum specifically for property outside an urban growth boundary; staff answered that the provision has been used in that manner in local practice, but committee members said any legal uncertainty should be resolved by counsel at the legislative level.

A substitute motion from Mr. Kreis also proposed adding plan-of-service requirements for all annexations — including detailed fire protection plans and a section addressing maintenance of county roads and bridges serving annexed areas — but the proposed substitute motion lacked a second.

Votes and outcome: The committee approved the interlocal agreement as presented by voice vote. Recorded votes included multiple committee members voting yes, one no vote and one abstention; the chair indicated a yes vote when counting. The committee directed staff to forward the agreement and the draft map to the legislative bodies for final action and to allow counsel to refine any legal language before each governing body approves a final document.

The committee’s approval does not itself finalize interlocal agreements or annexations; each city council and the Bradley County legislative body must adopt their own resolutions or ordinances and may refine the agreement wording during those processes.