Coffee County Pride asks for temporary fencing, county to seek attorney review

Laura Hatmaker, representing Coffee County Pride’s PFLAG chapter in Tullahoma, told the committee the nonprofit plans a craft-fair fundraiser on Saturday, Oct. 17, and asked for permission to place lightweight temporary barrier fencing at the county Administrative Plaza to separate vendor and family areas and improve safety. "We're having a craft fair... we're gonna be charging, you know, just a small fee 3 to $5," Hatmaker said, adding that volunteers would manage setup, tear-down and site safety.

Hatmaker said the group has received hostile messages and death threats at prior events and that a small admission fee helps deter disruptive attendees. "We get a lot of death threats," she said, and described prior events where the group hired private security or paid a city officer to provide on-site security.

Committee members raised legal and policy concerns. A member noted the Administrative Plaza is public property and said the county cannot restrict who may enter it, so any admission policy or fencing that limits access would require review. The member recommended the county attorney consider liability, insurance and nondiscrimination obligations before approving any restriction. Staff confirmed that the county's facility rental process typically requires liability insurance and that the Coffee County Fair Board (a private 501(c)(3)) might be an alternative venue that already has perimeter fencing.

The committee did not approve or deny the request during the meeting; members asked Hatmaker to provide contact information and organizational details so staff can forward the question to the county attorney and bring a formal recommendation to a future meeting. Hatmaker said the group would also explore the Fair Board as a backup and would continue planning in the meantime.

The committee's review will determine whether temporary barriers that do not penetrate the ground and that keep emergency access clear are allowable under county rules and whether a nominal admission fee would run afoul of public-access requirements on county-owned property.