Budget and Finance Committee sends parks grant application to county commission with no recommendation amid $1.3M local‑match questions

The Budget and Finance Committee voted to forward a Local Parks and Recreation Fund (LPRF) grant application to the county commission with no recommendation after lengthy debate over how the county would provide a required local match that staff said must not exceed $1.3 million.

Committee members and staff discussed options for a local match — including ARPA funds, capital‑project reserves (some invested in certificates of deposit), possible private contributions, or using land acquisition toward the match — but several members said the county has unresolved, larger capital priorities (including a pending jail project) and should not commit a large amount of county funds without clearer funding plans.

Amy, the finance staffer who provided packet figures, told the committee the grant would authorize application to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and that the county would not be required to accept the grant if selected. She also said grant awards are typically announced in August, giving the county time before a final acceptance decision would be required; however, the application must be submitted by the April 1 deadline. The committee asked Amy to confirm with Kimley‑Horn (the engineering/consultant referenced at prior public meetings) whether the committee can forward the application without identifying a fully specified funding source and what flexibility exists for the match timeline.

Several committee members said they support pursuing parks funding in principle but are uncomfortable formally recommending approval while the source of the local match is unclear. One member noted that the capital projects fund shows an estimated balance but substantial portions are invested in CDs that mature at different times, and another said using a large share of that fund now could preclude planned projects. Another member suggested private fundraising could reduce the county’s share but cautioned that the resolution as written commits the county to be responsible for a 50% local match not to exceed $1.3 million.

Public commenter Joan Tierney asked why anticipated future revenue sources — specifically a recently built large gas plant and an upcoming renegotiation of the CoreCivic contract — were not being considered for the match. Committee staff and members replied that those revenues are not in hand and cannot be relied on for the April 1 application; staff said the pipeline and contract renegotiation might yield revenue in future fiscal years but not within the grant application time frame.

After debate and requests for clarification from consultants and staff, the committee voted to forward the resolution to the full county commission with no recommendation and to seek the clarifying information before the commission’s meeting next week. The resolution will appear on the commission docket for a decision by the full body.

The committee also recorded that parks and recreation expanded the original scope of the grant request (which had focused on a pool) to also include renovations to tennis courts, per prior staff presentations. The committee asked parks staff and consultants to provide clearer cost breakdowns and funding options for the commission work session and to supply the Kimley‑Horn clarification by next week.