Brentwood city commissioners heard more than an hour of public comment and extended debate on Monday about a proposed indoor racket facility — a project supporters say can be self-funded and critics say would reroute public dollars away from infrastructure.

The discussion centered on three questions: how much the project will cost (estimates ranged from $13 million to $18 million or more), whether a formal public referendum is appropriate, and what traffic and safety changes would be required at Crockett Park if the facility moves forward.

The issue drew residents and organized advocates to the meeting. “It’s an $18,000,000 investment for a special interest group, at an expense to the greater tax paying population,” said Richard Camio, a 22‑year Brentwood resident who spoke during public comment. Several other residents asked for a public hearing and for a citywide vote.

Gary Latimer, chair of the indoor racket facility ad hoc committee, defended the project’s finances, saying the facility component alone is estimated at $13 million and that the facility would be “self funded” and generate revenue and reserves for maintenance and future replacement. “It’s going to make additional revenue and money just like all the other facilities in Davidson County, Williamson County, and Rutherford County that we compared our P&L to,” Latimer said.

Critics raised safety and equity concerns, and questioned whether the project is the best use of city funds. “Our tax dollars should be spent on the greater community interests, the well‑being and safety of the community, especially our children,” said Richard Camio, who urged more investment in sidewalks and traffic calming near Crockett Park. Doug Anderson asked the commission to treat the proposal like any third‑party developer project and hold a dedicated public meeting with full information available in one place.

Commissioners were divided. Commissioner Andrews said the project requires more public scrutiny and urged a referendum: “Whether you support it or are critical of it, I think it’d be right to ask for a referendum.” Commissioner Dunne and Commissioner Little said they favor a public vote on such a nonessential, high‑cost project unless residents explicitly support proceeding without one. By contrast, Commissioner Spears and Vice Mayor McMillan said a referendum is not automatically required and pointed to the city’s ability to pay from reserves without issuing debt.

City attorney Kristin Korn explained the legal limit on citizen referendums under Tennessee practice, reading a list of referendum‑eligible items compiled by the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS). “There are only certain items that are set forth by state law [that are] allowed to have public referendum for them,” she said, and noted that general obligation bonds are on that list. Korn and several commissioners clarified that a referendum tied to this project would be available only if the commission chooses to issue bonds to finance it.

Vice Mayor Susanna McMillan and staff outlined the project timeline and next steps. The commission hired architect Brian Richter (C and I Design) on Oct. 28, 2024, to convert conceptual plans into buildable design plans; Richter’s final design and cost estimate is expected in May or June. A sports facility management company that responded to the city’s request for proposals will brief commissioners at a Jan. 23 briefing.

Commissioners also disagreed about the total budget. Commissioners and speakers cited three numbers: a $13 million estimate for the facility itself, a $1 million estimate for a second Crockett Park entrance, and roughly $2 million to relocate parks department offices into the new building — producing a combined estimate of about $16 million. Commissioner Andrews said staff had recently estimated $18 million and some contractors warned it could be north of $20 million.

No formal decision was made at Monday’s meeting. Commissioners asked staff to continue the design and cost process and to share the final plans in a public meeting, and several said they would support a referendum if the commission ultimately decides to finance the project with bonds.

Votes at the meeting included a routine approval of minutes from last year’s meetings. The minutes were approved 6–0 with one abstention.

The commission is scheduled to receive the architect’s full design and cost report in May or June 2025; the public and commissioners will review those findings before any final construction authorization or bond decision.