Blount County approves $8 million toward purchase of Alcoa South Plant after debate over contamination and oversight

The Blount County Board of Commissioners voted 19–2 on July 16 to adopt Resolution 267001, committing the county to provide $8 million toward the Industrial Development Board’s purchase of the 162‑acre Alcoa South Plant.

County and IDB officials told commissioners the property has been the subject of a Brownfield agreement with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and that environmental testing identified hydrocarbons in a quadrant of the site. “We did a two‑and‑a‑half year perforation and testing process with TDEC,” said the official called forward by the chair, who explained that the Brownfield agreement limits liability for the end user and allows certain onsite management techniques such as capping contaminated soils rather than removing and transporting them offsite. The official also said the joint Industrial Development Board, not any single local government, holds legal title and that the county would not automatically inherit IDB liabilities.

The county’s CFO, Brian Baldwin, presented financial context, saying Blount County’s industrial parks have generated substantial tax revenue over decades and describing a historic 40/30/30 cost split among county, Maryville and Alcoa for similar projects. Baldwin said Blount County’s portion for this purchase is $8 million and described prior investments that produced strong revenue returns for the county.

Opponents — among them residents who spoke during the public comment period and some commissioners — pressed officials on contamination and long‑term costs. “If you buy it up, guess who’s responsible for cleaning it up? We will be. The taxpayers,” said a local union official who worked at the plant, citing firsthand concern about materials in the ground. Multiple residents asked whether remediation contracts would hold the seller or a buyer financially responsible for future cleanup; the county’s presentation emphasized the Brownfield framework and a letter from TDEC the IDB says limits county exposure.

Several commissioners also criticized the timing and governance of the deal. Commissioner Hannah asked whether the county was being asked to act urgently and how the $8 million figure related to other possible purchase scenarios; the response clarified the county’s $8 million contribution and the expected 40/30/30 allocation with partner cities. Commissioner Michaels said he was troubled by the process but ultimately argued the county must act to avoid an outcome the community would not want. Commissioner Davis announced a no vote, saying he prioritized constituent opposition and was not convinced the step was necessary.

Proponents framed the purchase as an investment in economic development and land‑use control. “If we don’t buy and control it, you’re going to be back up here in a couple months saying, ‘We don’t want this data center,’ but we didn’t put the money in where our mouth was,” one commissioner said, arguing the county needed leverage to guide future uses. Officials said prior redevelopment cases, state grants and private end users could shoulder remediation and infrastructure costs in the future.

The resolution passed 19 yes to 2 no. The approved motion directs the county to increase debt service appropriation and enter an agreement with the Industrial Development Board to acquire the site; the recorded vote listed 19 commissioners voting yes and 2 voting no. The Brownfield agreement and related environmental testing documents were cited repeatedly during the debate; the county official said the Brownfield final decree dates to 08/13/2001 and that contaminants identified were primarily localized hydrocarbons that could be managed on site if not removed.

What happens next: the IDB, the three mayors and the joint operating committee must approve specific redevelopment steps, and commissioners said they expect further negotiations on incentives, site planning, and potential end users. Several speakers urged the commission to require firm remediation commitments in any future sale or development agreement.

Vote at a glance: Resolution 267001 — budget increase/debt service to support purchase of Alcoa South Plant; motion carried, 19 yes, 2 no.