Budget panel directs future impact-fee increase to Capital Projects fund

The Budget and Finance Committee voted to recommend that any increase in the county's residential impact fee above $1,500 be allocated to Fund 171, the county's Capital Projects fund. The committee's action set a placement for future revenue from a proposed change in the impact-fee schedule but did not approve the fee increase itself.

Committee members said they brought the revenue-allocation question to budget and finance because the draft impact-fee change did not specify how additional funds would be used. Committee Chair (name not given) and several members said the county moved impact-fee receipts out of the schools' budget in 2016 and into the general fund; that historical change prompted concern that new revenue could be absorbed into general operations unless it is earmarked.

Committee member Bubba Gregory and others described the proposed schedule change in the packet as raising the residential fee from $1,500 to $5,000, a change committee staff characterized as intended to bring the county closer to neighboring jurisdictions. Staff told the committee that neighboring counties use a range of approaches (flat fees or dollars-per-square-foot) and that several surrounding counties are also considering increases.

Committee members discussed possible uses for the additional revenue and repeatedly returned to capital needs already identified by the commission, including the county's capital projects fund and potential future public-safety facility needs. Several members proposed routing the incremental revenue above $1,500 into Fund 171 so it would be visible and reserved for capital improvements rather than rolling into the general fund.

At the committee meeting the motion carried: the committee recommended that whatever increase is ultimately approved above the $1,500 baseline be placed in Fund 171 (Capital Projects). Committee members and staff emphasized that the committee's vote was a recommendation about allocation and that the fee-level change itself would be considered later in the work session and by the full commission.

The broader meeting covered routine budget items and multiple grant and budget-amendment approvals. Committee members accepted financial statements and several budget transfers, discussed remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and opioid-abatement funds, and approved a number of smaller grants and transfers. Notable items included staff reports that about $450,000 remained in ARPA funds that had not been allocated; an opioid-abatement reserve withdrawal of $75,000 that will require a roll-call vote when presented; and committee approval of a public-safety grant to buy turnout gear.

Votes at a glance - Motion to recommend that any increase above $1,500 in the residential impact fee be allocated to Fund 171 (Capital Projects): motion carried by voice vote in committee (motion by Mr. Danes; second by Beverly Atwood). The committee's action was a recommendation on allocation only; it did not approve a fee increase. - Motion to approve minutes from the November meeting: approved by committee voice vote. - Purchasing committee approvals (including purchase of property described as located on Eastman across from the [jail/shipping area]): motion by Bubba Gregory; second by Beverly Atwood; approved in committee. - Motion to accept trustees cash balance and financial summaries for December 2024: motion by Bubba Gregory; second by Jerry Ford; approved. - Motion to authorize withdrawal of $75,000 from the opioid-abatement reserve for designated uses: committee recommended approval; staff said the item will require a roll-call vote at the full meeting. - Approval of safety/fire grant to buy two sets of turnout gear (grant referenced as 'Grama safety and fire grant' in packet): motion carried. - Insurance-recovery revenue (patrol car deer strike): motion to accept insurance recovery: carried. - TISA (Tennessee Investment and Student Achievement) student-outcome bonuses funding, special-education reimbursements, education-incentive transfers, and the Utrust funding for summer learning and camp incentives: motions to accept these budget items were carried.

Why it matters: Impact-fee revenue can be a significant source for capital projects such as roads, schools or public-safety facilities. By recommending that increases be routed to Fund 171, the committee is trying to preserve new revenue for visible capital investment rather than leaving it available for general spending without a dedicated plan.

What happens next: The allocation recommendation will be recorded in the committee's report and the underlying impact-fee ordinance or fee schedule will be discussed in the full commission work session and at subsequent commission meetings. Staff and committee members said more legal and revenue-estimate work would be needed to finalize any fee level change and to set an approved project list for Fund 171.