Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Soil Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee votes down converting soil conservation contract to county position
Summary
The Blount County Budget Committee voted 5-0 against Resolution 25-01-003, which would have converted a contract soil conservationist to a part-time county employee and added $36,199 to the county budget lines; committee members cited liability and timing concerns and asked for further review.
The Blount County Budget Committee voted 5-0 to defeat Resolution 25-01-003, a request to appropriate $36,199 to convert a contractual soil conservationist to a part-time Blount County employee.
The measure, introduced as a budget increase for Soil Conservation, would have moved an employee funded through grants from an independent contract relationship to a county payroll role. Eric Henry, director of the Blount County Soil and Water Conservation District, told the committee the position’s funding comes from grants secured by the district and that converting the position would be “pass through funding with no net increase to the county budget.” He said the change would simplify payroll and grant accounting: “It would certainly make it easier on the employee being a part time county employee ... and make it easier on me having all the employees of the district on a central county spreadsheet.”
Several committee members raised concerns about legal and fiscal exposure. Commissioner Hannum questioned the business case and the timing—asking why the change was proposed now rather than being handled in the 2025–26 budget workshops. Commissioner Anderson pressed whether county liability and workers’ compensation responsibilities had been reviewed, noting the shift could move liabilities from the state district to the county if the person became a county employee. A county staff member identified as Don noted that a contract worker would not be covered by county workers’ comp, while a county employee would be.
Committee members asked for additional review by county personnel and the county attorney or the state attorney general before approving such a change. Commissioner Anderson said he had “a lot of reservations about doing this until we know a little bit more” and later stated, “I am against doing this right now.” The committee voted, and the mayor announced “you have 5 nos.”
Although the resolution failed in committee, Commissioner O’Brien clarified that the item will still move forward to the commission workshop for further consideration and discussion.
