Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board hears budget report; staff flags off‑renewal deficit, technology and investigations charges

Tennessee Board of Land Surveyors · August 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board’s director delivered an informational budget review for April–June, noting an expected deficit in the off‑renewal year, a $3,200 contract charge for shared core technology, project‑specific STS technology charges, and a higher‑than‑usual investigations allocation for April.

The Board of Land Surveyors received an informational director’s report covering budget activity for April through June and did not take action.

Staff said the board operates on a renewal/off‑renewal cycle that typically runs a deficit in off‑renewal years and returns to surplus during renewal years. The director highlighted three items in the April–June window: a $3,200 share of a renewed core‑technology maintenance contract invoiced late, a roughly $2,500 Edison/technology charge tied to project‑specific enhancements billed to the program, and an elevated investigations expense for April (about $4,800) allocated to the board because of disproportionate use that month.

Director remarks explained the difference between “admin cost backs,” which allocate shared building and business services across programs, and line‑item Edison expenses unique to the board’s program. Staff noted the core contract now has multi‑year terms with year‑over‑year increases of about 3% and that future invoices will typically arrive and be processed in January. Investigations services are maintained on retainer and allocated monthly based on actual program use; the director said the board disproportionately used those investigative services in April and therefore carried a larger share of the retainer that month.

Board members asked questions about the nature of investigations and expert reviews; staff clarified investigatory work differs from expert review work and explained the retainer model. No vote was required. Staff invited members to raise further questions offline and offered to provide ledger detail on request.