Finance Committee withholds recommendation on Andersonvilles proposed 2026 budget, asks for workshop review

The Finance Committee of Andersonville, Tennessee voted during a regular meeting to withhold a recommendation on the proposed fiscal 2026 budget and tax-rate ordinance and to review the proposal further at a finance workshop.

The ordinance under consideration was described in the meeting as "Ordinance 20 25 0 9, Ordinance of the City of Andersonville, Tennessee adopting the annual budget and tax rate for the fiscal year beginning July 1 ending June '26." Jeff Sasse, chairman of the Finance Committee, opened the meeting and framed the core choices the committee faced, saying, "This budget that's before us includes a 2% COLA, the standard 2 and a half percent merit increase and a $2,000 bonus for all nonexecutive." The committee then discussed a set of alternate salary scenarios, a proposed separation of the citys trash fee from the property tax bill, and several line-item questions across departments.

Why it matters: the ordinance sets the citys spending plan and tax rate for the fiscal year beginning July 1 and affects employee compensation, capital projects and the structure of the property tax bill. Committee members flagged tradeoffs between funding additional pay for city employees and the impact of alternative revenue structures on lower-value homeowners.

Committee discussion and major items - Salaries and scenarios: Committee members reviewed five salary scenarios presented by staff. The packet before the committee included (1) the mayors proposed package (2% COLA, 2.5% merit framework and a $2,000 nonexecutive bonus), and four alternate scenarios that would shift the mix of flat and percentage increases across police, fire and general employees. Jesse (staff member) explained the scenarios and their fiscal impact; committee members raised concerns about equity and fiscal balance. Sasse said he opposed a scenario that would give all employees a uniform 10% increase because "this puts the employees at a step above the police, which isn't what we're wanting to do in my opinion." The committee asked staff to refine numbers and to discuss them in the upcoming workshop.

- Trash fee alternative: The meeting included a detailed discussion about a proposal to separate the city trash charge from the property tax bill and present it as a distinct line item. The proposal as presented would set the annual trash fee at $297 for 21,300 addresses and reduce the advertised tax rate from 0.5883 to 0.4277 (per $100 of assessed value) while moving trash revenue to a stand-alone fee. Committee members expressed concern about the distributional effect: lower-value homeowners would see a larger net increase in out-of-pocket cost than higher-value homeowners. As Sasse summarized, using a $500,000 example with assumptions from the presentation, a homeowner would pay roughly $85 more per year under the proposed structure because the separate fee would more than offset the property tax reduction for that price point.

- Departmental line items and clarifications: Tamara Ingersoll, finance director, walked through revenue and department expenditures. She noted intergovernmental revenues were budgeted at approximately $19,000,000 and explained that figure includes federal and state grant revenues and state-shared taxes. She confirmed planned one-time or near-term increases for capital projects and that the city is phasing in a new finance ERP system; the implementation line was described as roughly $90,000 in the coming year with substantially lower maintenance thereafter. Other clarifications included a proposed recurring labor-attorney retainer in human resources (retainer estimated at about $15,000–$20,000 plus funds for special projects) and an expected update to the pay-study cadence (municipal code currently calls for a five-year study; staff suggested shortening it to four years).

- Behavioral health partnership funding: Chief Johnson (title recorded in the meeting as Chief) described a multiagency arrangement with a behavioral-health worker supplied through a nonprofit partner (Volunteer Behavioral Health) who has been operating under grant funding that recently lapsed. Chief Johnson explained the city negotiated a contribution to keep the specialist available for crisis calls, saying the city "would match up to 40% of her salary, up to $50,000." Committee members asked for additional detail on the contract split and coverage hours.

Vote and next steps The committee voted to provide a negative recommendation on the budget as presented and to continue detailed review at a scheduled finance workshop. A motion to not recommend the proposed budget passed and the group agreed to reconvene at the workshop to refine scenarios and outstanding line-item questions, including the trash-fee options and salary modeling.

Procedural votes taken earlier in the meeting included approval of the meeting agenda and approval of the April 22 meeting minutes. The committee adjourned after scheduling further review.

The Finance Committee will revisit the budget scenarios, supporting schedules and the trash-fee analysis at a budget workshop scheduled by staff; committee members asked staff to supply more detailed breakdowns (for example, an itemized telephone/internet communications line, capital versus operating classifications for specific equipment, and a clearer reconciliation of the salary scenarios to prior midyear adjustments).