Epperson Proposes Limits on Nondisclosure Agreements in County Government

Shelbyville NOW | October 10, 2026

Bedford County Commissioner Anita Epperson is proposing restrictions on confidentiality agreements that prevent public officials and county employees from discussing taxpayer spending, economic development incentives, infrastructure impacts and other matters before county government.

Epperson, who represents the 4th District, said she will request that the resolution be placed on the Rules and Legislative Committee’s October agenda. She also reported that 5th District Commissioner Brent Smith contacted her through social media to express interest in co-sponsoring the proposal. The county’s current commission roster confirms both representatives’ district assignments.

“This is to help with full transparency in the county. Project Cardinal comes to mind,” Epperson wrote in the public announcement accompanying her draft resolution.

The proposal would establish a county policy governing voluntary nondisclosure agreements, commonly called NDAs, along with confidentiality contracts and non-disparagement agreements. Its stated purpose is to protect public access to information and prevent contractual restrictions from interfering with government accountability.

Restrictions Would Extend Beyond the County Commission

Under the draft, the restrictions would apply to elected county officials, commissioners, county employees and members of county-appointed boards, committees and subcommittees, including appointed citizen members. County representatives serving on joint economic development boards or industrial development authorities would also be covered when acting in their official capacity.

Those individuals would be prohibited from voluntarily entering agreements that restrict their ability to disclose information about public expenditures, project performance measures, tax incentives, infrastructure impacts, public policy discussions or zoning changes that may reasonably come before county legislative bodies or committees.

The proposal would also require future county procurement documents, purchase orders and professional service agreements to include a corresponding transparency provision. Suspected violations would be referred to the Bedford County Ethics Committee for investigation. The draft does not specify particular penalties.

In its introductory language, the resolution argues that voluntary confidentiality restrictions can limit public oversight and undermine confidence in government. It frames access to information about public money and official decisions as a central responsibility of county government.

Exceptions Would Preserve Certain Confidential Information

Epperson’s proposal includes exceptions for court-ordered protections, narrowly defined proprietary information protected under the Tennessee Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and certain temporary confidentiality commitments during active economic development negotiations.

For the economic development exception, the draft would require all final project details to be disclosed to the Board of Commissioners before formal authorization.

The distinction is between confidentiality required or protected by law and additional restrictions that county representatives voluntarily accept. The proposal seeks to limit the latter while retaining specified protections for sensitive information.

Project Cardinal Provides Local Context

Project Cardinal was the development code name associated with Duksan Electera America’s manufacturing project at the 231 North Industrial Park. Tennessee officials publicly announced the project in July 2022 as a planned $95 million investment involving an electrolyte manufacturing facility serving the electric vehicle battery industry, with a commitment to create 101 jobs over five years. 

Questions about how information concerning that project was shared later became part of a broader dispute over local economic development practices. In October 2023, Shelbyville NOW reported that city council members raised concerns about the Shelbyville-Bedford Partnership’s use of project code names. That report stated that the council had approved Project Cardinal under its code name before being informed that the proposed facility would be a chemical plant. Epperson’s reference connects the proposed county policy to that earlier discussion about how much information elected representatives and residents receive before public decisions are made.

State Law Already Addresses Public Disclosure

The Tennessee statute cited in the draft, Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-1-130, addresses public access to county economic development agreements involving public funds.

Subject to its exceptions, the law makes those agreements and their supporting records available for public inspection when they are provided to members of the governing body. It also requires the governing body to disclose a proposed agreement in a way that adequately informs the public before a vote. The statute separately protects specified trade secrets and certain company marketing information and capital plans. 

That public-disclosure requirement is separate from the draft’s provision requiring final project details to be given to commissioners. The proposed local policy would address the agreements county representatives may sign, while existing state law would continue to govern which records must be released and which remain protected.

Proposal Headed Toward Committee Consideration

Epperson serves on the Rules and Legislative Committee, which reviews proposals before they advance through the county’s legislative process. The county lists the committee’s regular meeting time as the third Tuesday of each month at 5 p.m. at the Bedford County Courthouse, placing its regular October meeting on October 20. Epperson’s announcement identifies agenda placement as her intended next step. 

As written, the resolution would take effect upon passage and establish a standing transparency requirement for the officials, employees, appointed members and future county contracts covered by its provisions.

Sources

Commissioner Anita Murray Epperson’s public announcement and accompanying draft resolution; Bedford County Government’s Board of Commissioners roster and standing committee information; Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-1-130; Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development’s July 27, 2022, Duksan Electera America announcement; the October 2022 groundbreaking report reproduced on Duksan Electera’s website; and Shelbyville NOW’s October 13, 2023, reporting on the Shelbyville-Bedford Partnership.

Breaking NEWS*****
Senior Property Tax Freeze Debate Returning to Bedford County

October 5,  2026

The Senior Property Tax Freeze debate is coming back to Bedford County.

Commissioners Michael Gregory and Anita Epperson have both said they intend to ask that the issue be placed before the Rules and Legislative Committee at its October 20, 2026 meeting, reopening a debate over a proposal that came within one vote of passing the Bedford County Commission earlier this year. The timing is significant because property owners across the county are now receiving their first tax bills following the countywide reappraisal and beginning to see what those new property values mean in actual dollars.

The issue itself has a long history in Bedford County. In 2019, then-Commissioner Brent Smith brought forward the idea of a Senior Property Tax Freeze as a way to provide some protection for older homeowners living on fixed incomes. The proposal largely fell on deaf ears with the Commission serving at that time. Smith later said the estimated cost was approximately $85,000 per year, and the idea failed to gain enough support to move forward.

Several years later, Commissioner Eric Maddox brought the issue back from the county side in coordination with Shelbyville City Councilman Josh Blevins, who was working through city government. Their effort developed into a coordinated city-county review of how the program could operate locally, what income limits might apply, who would administer it and what Bedford County could expect based on the experience of other Tennessee communities already participating.

Commissioner Anita Epperson became heavily involved as the proposal moved through county government and chaired the county subcommittee studying the issue. Information was gathered from other Tennessee counties already administering tax-freeze programs, and the Rules and Legislative Committee eventually voted 3-2 to move the proposal forward, with Epperson, Biff Farrar and Bill Anderson voting in favor.

The largest point of disagreement became the projected cost of administering the program. Bedford County's financial analysis assumed that two additional full-time employees would be needed in connection with the Property Assessor's and Trustee's offices, with a first-year personnel cost estimated at $115,899. Supporters questioned whether those projections accurately reflected the experience of other counties operating similar programs.

When the proposal reached the full Bedford County Commission, nine commissioners voted in favor, eight voted against it and one commissioner passed. Ten affirmative votes were required, leaving the measure one vote short of passage.

Public sentiment among Shelbyville NOW readers was far less divided. In a May 2026 poll asking whether Bedford County should implement the Senior Property Tax Freeze, 94 percent of those participating said yes and only 6 percent opposed it. The poll was an online reader poll and not a scientific survey of every Bedford County resident, but the margin clearly showed strong support among those who chose to participate.

Gregory has now brought the issue back into the public discussion through a recent video, saying he intends to ask that the proposal be placed on the October 20 Rules and Legislative Committee agenda. Epperson has also said she intends to make the same request, creating a clear path for the issue to return to the county's legislative process.

The timing could make this debate considerably different from the one commissioners had earlier this year. During the first discussion, homeowners were still trying to understand what the countywide reappraisal would ultimately mean. Today, those same property owners are receiving their actual tax bills and comparing what they owe this year with what they paid before the reappraisal.

There has been considerable confusion over the statement that reappraisal is supposed to be revenue neutral. Tennessee's certified tax rate process is designed to prevent county government from automatically receiving a windfall simply because the total value of property increased. That does not mean every individual tax bill remains the same. A property that increased in value at a greater rate than the countywide average can still result in a higher tax bill, while a property that increased at a slower rate may see little change or even a reduction.

That distinction is especially important for senior homeowners. A person may have owned the same Bedford County home for 30, 40 or 50 years and watched its market value increase substantially without seeing anything close to the same increase in household income. A higher property value on paper does not necessarily provide additional money to someone living primarily on Social Security, a pension or retirement savings.

Tennessee's Senior Property Tax Freeze is designed to address that situation. State law allows participating counties and municipalities to freeze the property tax amount for qualifying homeowners who are at least 65 years old, occupy the property as their principal residence and meet the applicable income requirements. The program does not eliminate property taxes. Qualifying homeowners continue to pay their established amount, but that amount is generally protected from future increases as long as they continue to meet the requirements.

For 2026, the standard income limit calculated for Bedford County is $43,780, while Tennessee law also allows a higher local-option limit of $63,470. Bedford County has not adopted the program, while 28 Tennessee counties currently participate.

If the proposal returns on October 20, commissioners will again have to weigh the administrative cost and effect on future county revenue against the benefit of providing qualifying senior homeowners some protection from continuing tax increases. The previous research, financial projections and information from participating counties are already available, so the discussion does not need to begin from scratch.

What has changed is the environment surrounding that discussion. Property owners are no longer looking at appraisal notices and wondering what may happen. They are looking at tax bills and seeing what happened.

The Senior Property Tax Freeze itself is not returning because Bedford County never adopted it. What is returning is the debate over whether it should be adopted, a debate that first surfaced with Brent Smith in 2019, returned through the Maddox-Blevins effort, came within one vote of passage earlier this year and is now being brought forward again by Gregory and Epperson.

Shelbyville NOW will continue following the issue as the October 20 Rules and Legislative Committee meeting approaches.

Articles 

Data Centers and the Cost to Local Infrastructure

Population Growth and Development in Bedford County

Private Property vs. Gun Control