Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jefferson County tables short-term rental licensing after legal review; public speakers urge passage
Summary
Commissioners postponed a county short-term rental licensing resolution after review by county legal staff and CTAS; residents urged swift adoption citing safety, revenue and regulatory concerns.
Jefferson County commissioners on July 15 voted unanimously to table Resolution 2025-06, a proposed ordinance to license and regulate short-term rental (STR) units, after the county attorney and the Tennessee County Services (CTAS) review identified sections needing revision.
The resolution would have established a county licensing framework for STRs; supporters urged the commission to adopt it quickly to address safety, neighborhood and revenue concerns. "It will provide safety and security for the owners, guests, and neighbors," said Jim Fox, a resident of Abilene Trail, Dandridge. Kathleen Billers of Arrowhead Drive told commissioners she and others supported passage and called the delay "very disappointing." She cited citizen estimates that STR licensing could generate roughly $2.9 million to $6.2 million annually for the county.
The county attorney described the draft as a useful foundation but said CTAS and his office found sections that could not be applied to Jefferson County as written. "They did not recommend passage as is," the county attorney said, noting, for example, that Jefferson County does not enforce the International Fire Code and has no county fire marshal to enforce some provisions cited in the draft.
Why it matters: Supporters said licensing would address occupancy, parking, fire and neighborhood impacts and create a new revenue stream at a time commissioners are discussing next year’s budget. Opponents — some STR owners — have warned the rules could harm their businesses.
What the commission did: Commissioner motioned to table the item and the commission voted 17-0 to table Resolution 2025-06 until the August meeting. The county attorney and CTAS will work with the public service committee to revise provisions to reflect local enforcement capacity and statutory applicability.
Discussion vs. decision: The meeting record shows public comment in favor of immediate passage and a legal review that identified edits needed for defensibility. The formal action taken was to table the ordinance to the next monthly meeting; there was no adoption or amendment of the draft ordinance at this session.
Next steps: County staff said the goal is to return a revised draft for the commission’s August meeting. The county attorney said the public service committee — which initially brought the draft — is expected to review the revisions before the next meeting.
Ending: Commissioners and residents who addressed the issue urged a prompt resubmission; the county attorney recommended changes intended to lower the risk of legal challenge and align enforcement responsibilities with county capabilities.
