[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6407422,"mediaKeyId","2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606","parentId",2364588,"title","Commission Confirms Several Appointments; BZA/BCA Seat Decided by Roll Call","audioSeconds",3983,"startMs",3052000,"endMs",7035000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606&start=3052&end=7035","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606/thumbnail_3052000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6407422/Hardeman-County/Tennessee/Commission-Confirms-Several-Appointments-BZABCA-Seat-Decided-by-Roll-Call","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6407422-17d3cc43f98c7bce9742b615f3cede51/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568489&Signature=HPh9oFCcXmkE1m-FPlVYTYhfjpPwuyqLW8dvW4BTrOlMT7Eo-lIMvYSfK~4Ke-C7hGog9qqs-~0o4-AsbwunDq-lqlMwTfRcdO3MUfgOfvzYyQdcQ0eRNgYVPy9jbDnjg-8~wZx3p5JHUnNlgMIPcZA5-LnYjHAeqBsg6-hTxsWVN8pRbeMc72jy4qH4Q3pPPyYtyIVMw~8QdLujwZH5F8ovnx57ngd7n4Z4NTtgCv14pYSBXFjm99PrywI52gfU-AF1DCY~oe2Qsdk6k17R1b-1jIypKn6rUIo1zpedrpA0XR6LNHs~ZaQb85fXRcYD8Nt5Maw~nKiELeZI1Tq17A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hardeman County, TN","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","Hardeman County commissioners approved several board appointments and reappointments and completed a contested roll‑call selection for a vacant seat on a county authority board.

Historical commission appointment: The commission approved the appointment of Deborah Carrier to the Hardeman County Historical Commission. County staff said Carrier has volunteered extensively with the county library and archives and had received the airport committee’s (archival caretaking) recommendation; commissioners moved and seconded the appointment and the motion passed by voice vote.

Planning and appeals boards: The commission reappointed an incumbent (identified in the meeting as Mrs. Polk) to the planning commission and reappointed Deborah Griffith to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Commissioners confirmed these routine reappointments and conducted the votes as part of the meeting agenda.

Contested BCA vacancy and roll call: Commissioners discussed filling an open seat on the county’s BCA board (a vacancy created by a retirement). Two candidates were nominated for that vacancy. The clerk conducted a roll‑call vote as outlined in the meeting, with commissioners asked to state their preference between the two nominees when their names were called. The roll‑call sequence and individual verbal votes are recorded in the meeting transcript; commissioners completed the roll call and the clerk announced the result at the dais.

Meeting process and transparency: Commissioners discussed the number of vacancies and staggered terms on the various boards and confirmed resumes and reappointment requests had been received for some nominees. The commission used the roll‑call method to resolve the contested appointment and confirmed the newly appointed members would serve until the end of the respective terms indicated on the appointment notices.

Follow up: Newly appointed members will assume their duties on the specified boards; any further vacancies will be handled following normal appointment procedures and reported at future commission meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Hardeman County Commission Feb 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners appointed a volunteer to the county historical commission, reappointed members to planning and variance boards, and held a contested roll‑call vote to fill a BCA seat; nominees were discussed and the roll‑call process completed in the meeting.","taxTitle","Hardeman County, Tennessee","taxId",71297,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6407434,"Commission Approves Budget Amendments; Tables One Pay Item, Raises Convenience‑Center Part‑Time Rate to $10.50",1548,4232000,5780000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606&start=4232&end=5780","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606/thumbnail_4232000.jpg","/articles/6407434/Hardeman-County/Tennessee/Commission-Approves-Budget-Amendments-Tables-One-Pay-Item-Raises-ConvenienceCenter-PartTime-Rate-to-1050","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6407434-24ec28ed01c6b1cef647b1364af2a4f0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568489&Signature=fLEOY1EIQR0kkphZf17S2HKwyyedfKRSaQLAxAUNvTKaDR8qiuCwQqh4mNcQQDAnfQQUc5-fqtnlzq69Onin1n5YE2amjTh2Ai5gvFzV7CHX067p1qWnzsjf7LOOkx-9wLCmzSGcHV1M5cSYy3fDsV9XXIVFPq-lYKXDwWZQvEPavg2gCfgZRouGgVQnxU0iOpRj4ArMU5zE-onWevApG8SvH~AaqftkqQZc-rpBjuX2jhwOxgEjOGKfg5p1dgPrAjmR-tsqGsVw0RGtHxbpb~3H1CfTy~AfSCmVdxtQ0xhABSqPJrpwFzCcQ4XRCZyqbx5Acv3ugeGRGRXups-pBA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hardeman County commissioners approved multiple budget amendments and adjustments and separately approved raising the hourly rate for convenience‑center part‑time workers to $10.50 for the remainder of the fiscal year. Commissioners also tabled one personnel pay amendment requested by the sheriff pending clarification.

What passed: The commission approved a packet of budget amendments (identified in meeting materials as items 13–15 and 17–27). County staff explained the amendments covered routine line‑item transfers, replacement of office equipment from reserve funds, grants that created positions in the health department, opioid settlement funds for law enforcement equipment, ambulance equipment purchases from an opioid reserve, and other operational adjustments. The budget committee recommended approval of the listed amendments to the full commission.

Convenience‑center wages: Commissioners approved a motion to increase convenience‑center part‑time wages to $10.50 per hour for the remainder of the fiscal year. Committee members explained federal thresholds on part‑time hours prompted centers to reduce hours to 25 per week; the committee said funds exist in the current landfill/convenience center budget to support the $10.50 rate for the remainder of the year. Commissioners discussed whether to set a precedent for mid‑year raises and agreed workshop discussion on pay‑policy and mid‑year raises would be useful before adopting any broader practice.

Tabled pay amendment: The commission pulled budget amendment number 16 — a personnel pay adjustment (a roughly $1,507 line transfer related to pay for a sheriff’s office employee who had taken on additional duties and is obtaining certification). Commissioners debated policy that individual salary increases should be included in the annual budget rather than mid‑year, and ultimately moved to table that amendment pending further clarification; the sheriff had advocated keeping the item but commissioners requested it be handled during budget work for the next fiscal year.

Process notes: County staff said combined reserve balances will be circulated at the next meeting and that most of the transfers were allowable under reserve line‑item rules. Several commissioners asked for a workshop to clarify county practice on mid‑year pay adjustments and for clearer approaches to handling individual versus group pay changes.

Outcome and next steps: The approved amendments were enacted as recommended by the budget committee. The convenience‑center wage change was approved; amendment 16 was tabled for further review and to be revisited during budget discussions.","The commission approved a slate of budget amendments covering courthouse, public safety and other accounts, tabled one mid‑year pay increase request, and approved a $10.50 hourly rate for convenience‑center part‑time workers pending full budget review.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6407440,"Airport Committee Gets Commission OK to Redesign Terminal Facade; No County Funds Committed",442,3176000,3618000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606&start=3176&end=3618","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606/thumbnail_3176000.jpg","/articles/6407440/Hardeman-County/Tennessee/Airport-Committee-Gets-Commission-OK-to-Redesign-Terminal-Facade-No-County-Funds-Committed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6407440-2d4391503a168fee8dbfa7fde49fd0d8/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568489&Signature=UrEchQ7Ex7BZWN~KeuY3594p4FC~FZLC9QLoDW22o7bxW~CPxT75sdaBCDuE2CEym71AizG9QrtA1gYR711X-gBqfZvJ9hrXFYbIUf7IOdbWWQ4JU-5dKiQKZGKogStYnqLFL3-kXbLA2FZ5HQRc~KNqOJSLxPN1rcyMKLcB-41mcg6odL1JuMCjauOI2dQ33-cDvO~ocj0QDKe95SjUWCDkgNJdgESjqCW5CkIkh2R3b51VHCjN89SKg9cZ6sUIXuOB3gQIiaDO~IUKcndi92wjYTUYuDB0h7Q0bkfPyiCv1f6ezBR6hZ2sYbJIfdptBs-kUzT53cSVm1tSIhiteg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hardeman County commissioners voted to allow airport committee members and the airport’s engineering team to pursue a redesign of the exterior facade of the county’s planned terminal building, while emphasizing any funding decisions would return to the commission.

Lede: The commission agreed to let the airport committee and its contracted engineers develop revised exterior drawings for the planned terminal — a change limited to the facade and not to the approved interior layout or building footprint — so the airport can present a ‘shovel‑ready’ alternative to potential funders.

Nut graf: County airport leaders said the county currently holds a terminal plan that duplicates a design used by another county. The airport committee and local volunteers proposed an adapted facade to give Hardeman County a distinct building profile they say could attract regional attention and economic interest. The commission’s approval allows designers to refine the facade and return with any budget implications; the grant that paid for the original plans would not cover changes to the exterior.

Details of the request: Airport committee chair Cathy Ledbetter (identified as chair of the airport committee during the meeting) presented two renderings: the currently owned plan (the interior already paid for by a past grant) and a proposed color rendering with a different exterior profile. Ledbetter and other airport committee members told the commission the change would not alter the interior layout or building size and that the committee unanimously approved pursuing an exterior redesign. Engineers from LRK and A2H were reported to be collaborating on cost‑conscious design options.

Funding and constraints: County staff clarified that the previous plans were paid for by a grant and that the grant would not pay for modifications to the plans. Airport committee members said they would seek outside contributions and that they understood the county is not in a position to commit substantial new funds immediately. County leaders repeatedly emphasized that any monetary commitment would be brought back to the commission for approval and that the commission’s present vote was limited to allowing the committee to proceed with redesign work and to prepare cost estimates and grant‑ready documents.

Commission vote and direction: Commissioners approved the motion to allow the airport committee to proceed with exploring the facade changes; the motion carried on a voice vote with no county funding authorized at the meeting. Airport and county staff said revised drawings and cost estimates would be returned to the commission before any spending.

Follow up: Airport committee members said a redesigned facade would help position the airport competitively for terminal grants and that having a ‘shovel‑ready’ set of plans would improve the county’s chances of winning state or federal funding. The committee committed to returning to the commission with cost estimates and any proposed funding requests before work begins.","County airport committee asked permission to update the exterior facade of a planned terminal to create a distinct design; commissioners approved proceeding with design work but did not commit county funds.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6407446,"Commission Hears Case to Move From Five‑Year to Four‑Year Property Reappraisals",337,939000,1276000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606&start=939&end=1276","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2364588-f542949c1ec2ebc3ad2f5293b346c606/thumbnail_939000.jpg","/articles/6407446/Hardeman-County/Tennessee/Commission-Hears-Case-to-Move-From-FiveYear-to-FourYear-Property-Reappraisals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6407446-af27ab28fcb8c33b1750b3e9f333c6b7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773568489&Signature=BIS7n~JR~CDVzWAnHwcfSyRf9XTHz7T5y~WEVm5XLGS2~HLlXLDyhG1V-eHiP4jg7beHZMlW1t4dfgkr6nkGBxSS54T2ti8BsaRUzqfsXowwyIYF6RdN48Qk1MZlLek1BdpFenK0leMEsG31P927Sr9wik4NkGmaky0OS1s7J1mgxLSEUNhqLanzNUoMdppvb41wPE2oZiYBjxCs9VMfkE0UqRdYNcqafMjOhuwwSYagpxmRtMsXJvjfuJ03x8Kcd0~15d24XNetSe7Sx-CVW4pJDBAnwQaCUhxqKGOmjKFih1VTcVdaZW3jYn31-JTXS~oE72YtjaivGjWaCcZqJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Hardeman County commissioners heard a detailed briefing on the county’s property reappraisal cycle and discussion of a proposal to move from a five‑year to a four‑year reappraisal schedule.

County officials and a representative from County Technical Assistance Service (CTAS) said moving to a shorter cycle would reduce the size and frequency of the state‑applied sales ratios that can lower assessed values — and the revenue available for the county and tax relief programs.

Why it matters: County staff and CTAS presenters said the current five‑year schedule has produced large sales‑ratio adjustments in recent years that, when applied to particular account classes and to relief programs for veterans and low‑income elderly taxpayers, reduce the amount recipients receive. County staff estimated the county could lose on the order of $300,000 in revenue under the ratio expected this year if the schedule is not shortened.

What was presented: Joe Griffin of CTAS described the mechanics: under the law, counties that reappraise less frequently can face two sales ratios between reappraisals. He said the first sales ratio (two years after an appraisal) reflects how market values have moved since the last reappraisal; in some recent examples that ratio has fallen to roughly 0.80 (meaning assessed values are about 80% of market on average). Griffin and the county assessor described how a second ratio, two years later, can drive the ratio lower still and affect county revenue, commercial assessments and state‑assessed property.

Comptroller office remarks: A representative joining virtually from the comptroller’s office (identified in the meeting as the comptroller’s office staff) told commissioners that a shorter cycle is “an excellent idea” and that the comptroller’s office would work with the county assessor and CTAS if the commission approves a shorter cycle. The comptroller’s representative said the state board that oversees approval of reappraisal plans — the State Board of Equalization — must approve any change in the reappraisal schedule.

Local fiscal impacts and examples: County staff and commissioners discussed local numbers presented in the meeting: a roughly 20% shortfall (a ratio around 0.80) was cited as a current projection that could cost the county about $300,000 in revenue this year, and CTAS staff described smaller municipalities facing proportionally larger impacts (one small municipality cited could lose about $60,000). Presenters also explained the ratio’s effect on tax relief: the meeting record cited examples where disabled veterans’ relief payments could decline from $792 to about $633 under the ratio, and elderly low‑income relief from about $144 to about $115 (figures were presented by county staff during discussion).

Operational issues and costs: The county assessor (identified in the meeting by first name, Josh) explained last year’s law change that “decoupled” visual inspections from the full reappraisal schedule, allowing continuous visual updates with a shorter reappraisal interval. Assessor staff said they did not foresee an immediate additional cost to move to a four‑year reappraisal because much of the visual inspection workload would continue; the assessor said staffing adjustments (restoring a prior full‑time position) might be considered but that the county already manages the current visual cycle and permit checks.

Next steps and approvals required: Commissioners were told a formal plan would be prepared and must be approved by the State Board of Equalization. CTAS and the comptroller’s office staff said they would help draft and review the county’s plan. No binding vote to change the county’s reappraisal schedule was recorded in the portion of the transcript provided; commissioners asked procedural and budgetary questions and indicated further action would follow.

Context and history: Presenters described a broader movement in Tennessee toward shorter cycles: several counties in the region have recently shortened cycles (examples discussed included counties moving from five or six years to three or two years). CTAS and comptroller staff said more frequent reappraisal can better track market swings whether values rise or fall and can reduce the arbitrary effect of the sales ratio mechanism when appeals and market movements occur.

What remains unresolved: Commissioners asked for follow‑up details on staffing and exact budget impact, and they were told the county assessor and CTAS would prepare the formal plan for approval by the State Board of Equalization. The meeting concluded the discussion without a formal county vote to change the schedule recorded in this transcript section.","County officials and state advisers urged shortening the property reappraisal cycle from five years to four to reduce the size of mandated ‘sales ratio’ adjustments that reduce taxable values and revenue.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission Confirms Several Appointments; BZA/BCA Seat Decided by Roll Call

Commission Approves Budget Amendments; Tables One Pay Item, Raises Convenience‑Center Part‑Time Rate to $10.50

Airport Committee Gets Commission OK to Redesign Terminal Facade; No County Funds Committed

Commission Hears Case to Move From Five‑Year to Four‑Year Property Reappraisals