[{"_1":2,"_120":-5,"_121":-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",[32,75,87,97,109],{"_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",6170163,"mediaKeyId","5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1","parentId",5398547,"title","Committee votes to phase in one-day monthly payroll holdback starting in September to address processing timing","audioSeconds",132,"startMs",3324000,"endMs",3456000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1&start=3324&end=3456","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1/thumbnail_3324000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6170163/Sumner-County/Tennessee/Committee-votes-to-phase-in-one-day-monthly-payroll-holdback-starting-in-September-to-address-processing-timing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170163-e9e52fe8cdf4a3fcf1e271a19b227e2e/orig.mp4?Expires=1775578890&Signature=VjK4MMM2TG1o2P~yACHwUZe4fF~Q5mk4NNRmRPdqJSwnjzhIH~4q8S21ADg7e0riiAl-zzI5noBl33-ao1K0PrzBuAWspvtS~RHFPvs7rcYajlErZdwRuKh9FFUqrf~1KCEKznbSkdCjo210bg9NPM6n3zDLhrZ0vv51RKXmILJVsu0B0~7tpikW25Os2Qq-9jncJoP-qV-mAqe5etQkhT-B-ZL71s7VJ9YhAPCalJJjkLxRXsep6-EpREKbzUA~HQK8ma8gZYP7DdEm9FW~7j0xaurTtit-cTR6UCKlusJRPwx6csa4OWLF9-aY24nQqzBSX9Fo0~p-9NZUdeBvGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sumner County, TN","date","2025-07-15T12:50:42Z","article","The committee approved a phased payroll timing change designed to reduce the county’s practice of paying employees before certain days of work have occurred. Under the agreed plan, the county will move the pay date by one day per month beginning with the county payroll cycle that falls at the end of September, creating a gradual holdback to improve cash-flow and allow staff extra processing time.

Finance staff explained that the county in some instances pays employees for a pay period that includes days the employee has not yet worked; moving the pay date will align payroll with work performed and reduce the administrative burden of processing corrections. A county staff member explained: \"we are paying ahead. So we would like to move it so that we have a holdback that we're paying after the employees have worked and give accounting enough time to process the transactions they need with the bank.\" The staff member also clarified there is no net cost to the county: \"It's no cost. We owe them the money. It's just a cash flow.\"

The committee adopted the change with a phased schedule tied to payroll cycles so the holdback reaches the intended level over several months. The committee also directed finance to meet with department heads and circulate a memo so supervisors can explain implications to employees and prepare for short-pay adjustments where necessary.

Members emphasized the change is procedural and does not reduce employee pay; it is a timing change to align payroll processing with the work performed and to reduce errors caused by advance payments. Staff indicated the change will be implemented after fiscal-year closing tasks and will be coordinated with department heads to minimize disruption.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Budget Committee (Table) 7/14/25","oneSentenceSummary","To improve payroll processing and cash-flow timing, the committee approved moving the county pay date by one day per month beginning with the September payroll cycle, phased over multiple months; staff will meet with department heads to explain the change.","taxTitle","Sumner County, Tennessee","taxId",19115,"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},6170167,"Speakers urge county to reallocate $500,000 from booster debt to inclusive playgrounds; broader budget concerns voiced",303,146000,449000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1&start=146&end=449","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1/thumbnail_146000.jpg","/articles/6170167/Sumner-County/Tennessee/Speakers-urge-county-to-reallocate-500000-from-booster-debt-to-inclusive-playgrounds-broader-budget-concerns-voiced","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170167-7bf69d71e51154e0a0ba6284e39b57ce/orig.mp4?Expires=1775578890&Signature=N4OpUlVmEOIi3WqzMYTB0ELLN5RPTCH0NGEY9ZW8DiK4TzziwT7bfiaq~pc27XEgtSLjyyDH-HU1j8YFFZdbQpgGcUpVBRaeghz1YH8k9GVU2bIQuAruKxgEsywnOJG4ftthZh72wsU4MP~iTs6s~YY9q4AWmjQgSL7VuC8aUUn6sGoAyHl8VfEdhWJKxmIaQM6N559chRu8tJmKldZVSWzWuKNDh16ziymy2c6kbcnXEE2aza5ibKH5f6IFjR-8ibpf4iAWTqTEkuPcC6XXZtKwGfkT2wQ7ILcG0lTbRYuPmEgNG3vbo5Dfs5OAj14FvkALkkKw4fGpk5g4Tr3k5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During the public-comment portion of the meeting, residents urged the committee to reconsider budget priorities and to reallocate $500,000 currently set aside for school \"booster debt\" repayment toward inclusive playground renovations at elementary schools.

Steven King, a school board member from District 5, told the committee the school board had unanimously approved $250,000 in seed money for inclusive playgrounds and asked the county to redirect the county’s $500,000 allocation from booster debt to playground renovations. King said the reallocation would create about $750,000 for inclusive playgrounds and could cover renovations at five or six elementary schools. He noted the county still faces roughly $1 million in remaining booster debt across schools and asked commissioners to adopt clear criteria for any booster-debt repayments, citing Westmoreland as a unique case previously funded by the county after that facility experienced severe maintenance failures.

Other public commenters raised broader budget concerns. Michael Clark and Mary Ginard urged caution on large new spending items, questioned forward costs attached to a proposed innovation center lease and asked officials to be careful stewards of taxpayer funds. Ginard said residents worry about further tax increases and told commissioners, \"You are the stewards of the citizens' checkbook.\" Michael Clark and Kevin Baker also questioned whether remote students could access programs at a single innovation center and warned of transportation and operational expenses.

County staff and the chair reminded the public that changes to the published budget at this point could trigger republication and delay; the chair said changes on the floor are limited by the budget publication timeline.

No formal reallocation motion was made during the meeting; King requested that commissioners consider an amendment to move the $500,000 to playground renovations in a future step, and committee members asked staff to note the request and the timing constraints for any budget amendments.","Public commenters urged commissioners to reallocate $500,000 earmarked for booster debt repayment toward inclusive playground renovations and raised general concerns about county spending priorities and timing of late budget additions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":79,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":82,"_51":93,"_53":94,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":95,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":96,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6170171,"Commission approves lease for proposed school innovation center after heated debate over costs, access and planning",6110,6256000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1&start=146&end=6256","/articles/6170171/Sumner-County/Tennessee/Commission-approves-lease-for-proposed-school-innovation-center-after-heated-debate-over-costs-access-and-planning","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170171-44a3cb5cf08bc005cfbf422bd87a4b24/orig.mp4?Expires=1775578890&Signature=ceM1VvbrncifLw8COHZVauFlzsPO6GuzUTu519GWZIC2J1v9QFMCCSCIl69BbpMDsOkOjJJjzZoJIqJaRdc9M-pLTZRNhVP9owjUs1x-jYAnMlND2DAwkv3BE4rsRZ--P3O7bvb1d8eLRIEvz46vkAG94~MiHkJZicVPNUoQ8r9AqqBiz3SFAfhwpk9R6Fh7eeooKaVu2-0ySqi7CNgnXU28ABSl-kHwn1d5sq8Zco8t4cTUn8B9xg~BYA1dmUUQ-qh-~oUqIOKwy1GZ2Fn~cV09uBfvDOCCkkdh5kP7gBU-B-4bGAaRNmJOxNnUL84J3vB1CqK72yn7FluggVehjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee voted to approve a lease resolution that would allow the school district to lease a large, recently vacated building for an innovation center. The motion passed after public comments and extended commissioner debate about the lease’s costs, the county’s long-term responsibilities under a triple-net lease and whether sufficient operational planning and outside funding were in place.

Public speakers raised concerns about access and long-term costs. Mary Ginard, speaking during public comment, told commissioners: \"You are the stewards of the citizens' checkbook,\" and urged caution on a large lease and the ongoing costs the county would incur. Michael Clark and Kevin Baker also questioned whether students from the county’s northern communities would have equitable access to a single, centralized facility and raised long-term cost concerns for staffing, utilities and transportation.

Commissioner Klein said he was opposed and called the decision a mistake, saying, \"I just it's it's a mistake, and I'll go down on the record as saying this is a mistake,\" citing lack of a full pro forma, uncertainty about operating costs and limited public detail on outside partners and commitments. Other commissioners argued the building creates an asset that could help attract outside investment and programming; one commissioner related that school officials had verbally reported commitments from private partners and philanthropy, including a claimed $1.2 million pledge referenced in committee discussion as a commitment from Meta.

Commissioners also noted specific lease elements that could keep the county financially responsible for building upkeep. Several speakers pointed out the lease’s triple-net provisions: the county would bear costs for major items such as roof replacement, parking repairs and utilities after the end of the base rental period. Commissioners pressed for and obtained a legal notice requirement tied to the lease motion; staff said statutory notice rules apply to the transaction and the committee added the notice requirement into the approval process.

The committee voted to move the resolution forward with the notice provisions included. Supporters said the building’s size and centralized space could serve as a hub to raise private dollars and host advanced programs in one location, while critics emphasized the county’s exposure to long-term operating costs and geographic equity concerns for students in more distant communities.

Staff and school officials were asked to provide more detailed, written pro forma financials and clearer plans for transportation and program operations as the lease proceeds through administrative and legal review.","The committee approved a lease resolution for a proposed school district innovation center after lengthy public comment and commissioner debate on costs, access from northern parts of the county, long-term operating responsibilities, and promised outside funding.",{"_33":98,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":99,"_41":100,"_43":101,"_45":102,"_47":103,"_49":104,"_51":105,"_53":106,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":107,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":108,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6170176,"County committee approves ClearGov budgeting software contract with 90-day opt-out; legal review and sole-source letter required",2107,1613000,3720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1&start=1613&end=3720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1/thumbnail_1613000.jpg","/articles/6170176/Sumner-County/Tennessee/County-committee-approves-ClearGov-budgeting-software-contract-with-90-day-opt-out-legal-review-and-sole-source-letter-required","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170176-7688f31b0e6d7c0cfa3bd90ed551875b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775578890&Signature=KaCBobVNLQBr9AV8D6r5N8VNru6hgW8AKwgKAN8owdXuTqV7pk47vyMyAU2JjwsVn-sKDrds1ncw6IBexWAfirsIj~hk7hnb3O~MW8a~lotAC8-rGd8lxV9M9PK4IDrVcK083dqdFthcQmYszsrZBrdNX-oEDsAgznLMoFXzxZauccGUsx8U5jsvPUjrDUag720Js49~PPXYrh5up-3Haei7sxfFh3qS0NdFwL8cAagY7IV4OENgLukIUBErDSZYUM83pKG0OhMCWCientQaxkG5-w0~7oD0j9PLPoBgR2Aivptel7AV6WbZGSdyZBQDSZoHHVKfO67wjFAwYul2BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The committee approved sending a contract recommendation for ClearGov’s budgeting and transparency software to the county commission, with conditions: the vendor must provide a sole-provider letter if the county pursues a sole-source procurement, and the county’s legal and purchasing staff will review whether the sole-source path is appropriate. The contract passed with an opt-out period that allows the county to cancel during an initial trial window.

Tom, a ClearGov representative, presented the software and showed sample public-facing budget documents and a transparency portal. He described a one-time implementation fee (presented in the meeting packet as about $33,075) and a first-year annual license fee quoted at $78,075 (the vendor also described a 3% annual increase if the county remains in the contract term). Tom said implementation and onboarding typically take 60–90 days and that the vendor offers self-guided training plus workshop sessions for staff.

Committee members asked procurement and timing questions. Commissioners pressed whether ClearGov needed a competitive process; staff and legal said they would review whether the product qualified as a sole-provider procurement or whether the county should pursue an RFQ. The committee agreed to require a written sole-provider justification from the vendor and to have purchasing/legal evaluate it; if sole-source justification is not available, staff said the county will proceed with an RFQ.

Commissioners asked about integration with the county’s ERP (Munis). ClearGov representatives said the software imports data from the ERP and can export budget versions back to the ERP; staff noted many implementation details would be worked out during onboarding.

The committee approved moving the contract forward with a contract start date to be adjusted so onboarding aligns with the county’s budget calendar (committee members sought a start closer to the November–January window so the software would be in place before key budget input work). The motion included the 90-day opt-out language discussed in the meeting packet and was subject to the vendor’s timely provision of sole-provider documentation and legal review.","After a presentation from ClearGov, the committee approved moving the ClearGov contract forward with a trial window and subject-to-legal review on sole-source justification. The contract includes a one-time implementation fee and an annual license fee; committee members discussed pricing, procurement options, and the risk of vendor lock-in.",{"_33":110,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":111,"_41":112,"_43":113,"_45":113,"_47":114,"_49":115,"_51":116,"_53":117,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":118,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":119,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6170181,"County budget committee forwards FY2026 budget, recommends revenue-neutral tax rate",0,5492000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1&start=5492&end=5492","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5398547-3398b2302b1bf905fc6e38540acb7ee1/thumbnail_5492000.jpg","/articles/6170181/Sumner-County/Tennessee/County-budget-committee-forwards-FY2026-budget-recommends-revenue-neutral-tax-rate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6170181-468e2ee08567ba99ad14c3ff345b7e5f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775578890&Signature=XGxRH1ftST7fy-vbr1J0k72QJ9dR2rh8Zfp2Fnuo6nwJiAxPIPavjkqKwpEab4mlSnGNG1ZhK2UjUTD0fBw5gJyGP5gbDwmaxAhVBACMwVhc-SgVp2pC8b97ryRSVCz1gknbNY76KbQpgKFReii32wbgyUj4W3jHhyvXNjNveuUbFogQc37sUiXCnworOEQzsaht1Efghd3z4Sor8MqSENT6ckN6Sj~5~Z0YxBqIinj4Rs9QkX0WjaaRv~izA2ipo9fxkGVsGHASnRHDlLzAwuPaORtG6rQXP50G-k0Hx0Kwvx1KRKjSDql1wXQHN4WGQ~lMzaxY-jsEZdvJRGfveQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County budget committee members voted to forward the county’s FY2026 budget package and recommended a revenue-neutral tax rate of 1.421 to the full county commission. The committee also reviewed long-term capital project schedules and debated whether to remove placeholder items for multiple future ambulance stations, but made no appropriations or site commitments for those projects.

The budget motion carried and the committee moved the appropriation resolution forward as required by law; committee members recorded that the recommended tax rate would be unchanged at 1.421 for 2025–26. Committee discussion focused on long-term capital schedules appended to the budget rather than on the legally required, published fiscal-year budget figures.

Committee members noted the long-term planning schedules list a series of proposed ambulance/EMS stations in future years. Several members said the entries are placeholders without assigned sites or firm project plans. Commissioner Mansfield asked for clarification and emphasized that the long-term schedules did not yet include the Westmoreland station currently under construction. Staff confirmed that the capital schedules represent requests and planning placeholders collected from departments and are not appropriations.

Commissioners debated whether the placeholders should remain in the published material. One commissioner moved to strike several of the multi-year EMS placeholders; that motion failed on a voice vote. The committee discussed sending the long-term plan items to the Health and Emergency Management committee for additional review; Health and Emergency Management had already received the materials, staff said.

Committee members also discussed notice and procedural limits for changing the published budget: altering the published FY2026 budget now would require republication and additional hearings under state law, staff reminded the committee.

The committee recorded several related procedural approvals during the meeting, including forwarding the appropriation resolution and recommending approval of the county budget to the full commission. No new tax rate was adopted at the committee level; the 1.421 recommendation will be considered by the full county commission.

Less-critical items in the long-term schedule — conceptual projects with no locations specified — were left in the packet for planning purposes rather than as budgeted appropriations.

Committee members said staff will provide additional detail on any future capital projects before funds are appropriated.","The committee voted to forward the FY2026 county budget and a revenue-neutral tax rate of 1.421 to the full county commission, and discussed long-range capital projects including additional EMS stations without committing to locations or appropriations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee votes to phase in one-day monthly payroll holdback starting in September to address processing timing

Speakers urge county to reallocate $500,000 from booster debt to inclusive playgrounds; broader budget concerns voiced

Commission approves lease for proposed school innovation center after heated debate over costs, access and planning

County committee approves ClearGov budgeting software contract with 90-day opt-out; legal review and sole-source letter required

County budget committee forwards FY2026 budget, recommends revenue-neutral tax rate