Citizens trying to force a referendum on the city borrowing $3 million to upgrade Propst Park have been emailing protests to City Hall over the past few days, Chief Financial Officer Jim Brigham said.

Brigham, who also serves as city secretary-treasurer, said he had received close to 50 protest emails as of press time Friday. The emails include the name, address and “sometimes the telephone number” of the protester, Brigham said, as well as a clear indication they are opposing the bonds.

Not only is that a far cry from 1,500 qualified petitioners required to force a referendum, but the emails bear no signature, which means they likely won’t count as a viable petition anyway, Butler Snow bond attorney Tray Hairston said.

“… There is case law as to what constitutes a valid petition of a protest,” Hairston wrote in an email to The Dispatch on Friday. “It is clear that although a petition may be typed, it must be personally signed by the objecting party or parties. Therefore, emails do not count.”

Will Sanders and Leslie Sorrell, who are involved with the group A Better Columbus and the Columbus Matters publication, started this week actively encouraging citizens through email and social media to send Brigham the email protests.

The Dispatch contacted the elections division for the Mississippi Secretary of State’s Office, which indicated it would look into the legality of those protests. It did not offer responses by press time.

The city council, on a 4-2 vote May 17, approved a $4.4 million parks renovation plan centered on improving Propst Park. The council resolved to use $1.4 million the city had on hand from tourism tax collections, while borrowing the remaining $3 million and repaying the debt with future tourism tax revenue. The tourism tax, a 2% sales tax collected from prepared food and beverage sales in the city limits, will provide $4 million for city recreation over the next 10 years.

Brigham told The Dispatch the debt shouldn’t necessitate a property tax increase, since it will be supported by the sales tax, but it would raise the city’s total debt to almost $30 million. By statute, Columbus can carry debt of 20% of the total assessed valuation of taxable properties in the city, which would be about $40 million, he said.

But the debt would come with about $1 million in interest in fees, Brigham said.

“So if we borrow $3 million, we’re actually spending $4 million because of the interest,” he said. “The question is, ‘Is it worth the interest (to do the work all at once) versus just doing it piecemeal?’”

Butler Snow, the Ridgeland-based firm handling legal work for the bond, published the resolution of intent to issue bonds in The Packet’s last three weekly editions, which is required by law. The resolution reads that if 1,500 qualified electors submit “written protest” to the city’s secretary-treasurer opposing the bonds by 5 p.m. July 18, it would force the city to put the issue to a public vote.

However, in his email to The Dispatch, Hairston cited a state statute (1-3-75) that requires each petitioner to personally sign a petition for it to be valid. He also cited a separate statute (1-3-61) that reads, “In all cases where the signature of any person is required by law, it shall always be the proper handwriting of such person, or, in case he be unable to write, his proper mark, unless a different form of legal signature is specified in another statute.”

While Brigham confirmed the emails he’s received so far don’t even include an electronic signature, Hairston equivocated on whether those would be sufficient.

“In my opinion, it must be personally signed by the objecting party or parties,” he wrote.

When reached by The Dispatch, City Attorney Jeff Turnage declined to give an opinion on what constitutes a legal petition. He said since he represents the city and the majority of the council had voted to issue the bonds, he felt it was a conflict to advise citizens on how to protest it.

“After … the deadline passes, we’ll look and see what we have and evaluate if it’s sufficient,” Turnage said.

Mayor Keith Gaskin disagrees with that stance.

“It is a right that citizens have (to protest),” Gaskin said. “I disagree with our city attorney that he cannot answer questions about it when people ask him. … I think we are obligated when citizens ask about that, they should be able to call their city government and get the answers.

“… I will be looking into it and be doing everything I can to make sure our citizens have the accurate information they need that if they want to protest a decision made by their city government, they can do that legally,” he added.

For Brigham’s part, he plans to keep up with the number of emails, vet if the senders are registered voters, and if the protests reach 1,500, present that at the council’s July 18 meeting

Zack Plair is the managing editor for The Dispatch.