Committee advances 10¢ property-tax proposal, OKs 5% employee raises as debate over TVA school revenue continues

Coffee County’s Budget & Finance Committee voted Wednesday to forward a proposed 10¢ increase in the county property tax rate to the full commission and approved a 5% across‑the‑board pay increase for county employees, following extensive public comment from sheriff’s deputies and a line‑by‑line budget explanation from the county budget director.

Marina Edinger, Coffee County Director of Accounts and Budget, told the committee the budget under review remains draft until the legislative body adopts a final version and outlined specific revenue and reallocation options for the school general purpose fund. “The TVA revenue rightfully belongs to the Coffee County General Fund,” Edinger said, describing Tennessee Valley Authority property tax receipts as state‑collected revenue the county can budget but which historically has sometimes been redirected to rural school needs. Edinger said the TVA amount removed from the schools in the draft budget was $671,240, and she presented a set of shifts she said would reduce the county general‑fund deficit from $2,665,646 to about $1,603,013 under her proposals.

Edinger recommended several adjustments intended to lower next year’s budget shortfall: moving a school bond (the “train bond”) payment into the rural debt service fund instead of the school general purpose fund, shifting $500,000 out of the sheriff’s operating line into general debt service, moving about $150,000 of HVAC work into capital projects, and postponing a 2% across‑the‑board salary increase while keeping longevity pay. Edinger also listed projected revenue increases for the schools: $260,111 in current property tax growth and $189,830 in local option sales tax, and she recommended the county continue to cover the train bond payment from the appropriate debt service fund during the bond term.

The budget meeting opened with multiple deputies and sheriff’s office staff urging pay increases and improved benefits. “I’m only asking for fairness and respect through action,” said Deputy Anthony Harden, who described the personal and family strain of working in law enforcement at current pay levels. Night patrol Sergeant Matthew Miller and Deputy Juan Flores detailed overtime, second‑job work and the family sacrifices deputies say they are making to remain in Coffee County service.

Sheriff (name not specified) told commissioners he would support a tax increase if it was required to raise pay: “If it takes a tax increase voted by this body to get them and all the county employees where they need to be, then I am willing to fall on that sword and take that chance,” he said, stressing staffing and public‑safety risks tied to turnover.

After the public comment and staff presentation, the committee debated several options to bridge the draft budget gap. A motion first proposing an 8¢ property‑tax increase was amended on the floor to 10¢; the amended proposal received a majority voice vote in committee and will be sent to the full commission for consideration. Committee members also approved a motion to grant a 5% pay increase to county employees (with elected officials excluded) and to revisit an additional 2% in January, to be allocated either as salary or insurance relief depending on revenue and department input. Committee members limited department‑head increases so distribution could be used, at department heads’ discretion, to address lower paid staff or other retention priorities.

Committee members also voted to approve four year‑end budget amendments for the sanitation, ambulance, highway and drug funds and approved the previous meeting minutes. Several commissioners urged caution about drawing down fund balance, noting the county’s fund balance generates interest income and is reserved for unanticipated costs.

The committee’s actions set a trajectory for the full commission: the 10¢ proposal and the employee compensation plan will appear for a full vote in the next commission meeting. Until then the budget remains a proposal and some line‑item shifts discussed by Edinger would require formal adoption and, in some cases, agreement across county funds and departments.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to approve agenda — Mover: Commissioner Stobelfield; Second: Miss Jones; Outcome: approved (voice). - Motion to approve previous minutes — Mover: Nettles; Second: Chambers; Outcome: approved (voice). - Budget amendments (01/2522, 01/2523, 01/2524, 01/2525) — Mover: Hirschman; Second: Stubblefield; Outcome: approved (voice). Described as year‑end and revenue recognition adjustments for sanitation, ambulance, highway and drug funds; total net effect described as no effect on fund balance for at least one fund, and increases or returns to fund balance for others (see clarifying details). - Motion to forward property‑tax increase to full commission — Mover: not specified; Second: Commissioner Stubblefield; Amended from 8¢ to 10¢; Outcome: passed in committee (voice vote; chair recorded a no). The committee recorded an estimate that a 10¢ uniform tax increase would generate approximately $1,284,784 gross (committee discussion noted distribution formulas and allowances that reduce net general‑fund receipts). - Motion on employee compensation — Mover: not specified; Second: Commissioner Stubblefield; Outcome: passed. Committee approved a 5% raise for county employees (elected officials excluded), with department heads limited in their own increases and given discretion to distribute departmental allocations; committee will revisit an additional 2% (or a dollar equivalent) in January for salary or insurance subsidy if revenues permit.

Context and next steps

- The committee vote to forward a 10¢ property‑tax increase is a committee recommendation and must be adopted by the full Coffee County legislative body before going into effect. Committee members said the measure will be discussed further at the next scheduled meeting; staff agreed to provide a snapshot spreadsheet showing the most recent revenue and expenditure figures before that meeting. - Maryann (Marina) Edinger’s reallocations are proposals from the budget office and would require formal adoption to become budget policy. Edinger emphasized that TVA receipts are state‑collected, shared revenue and that local bodies have historically chosen whether to direct portions to rural schools as a temporary measure.

Ending

The committee ended with direction to staff for a revenue/expenditure snapshot and scheduled continued work on the budget at the next meeting; until the full county commission votes, the budget and the tax proposal remain proposals.