Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Adequate Facilities Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilson County planning committee approves higher commercial adequate‑facilities tax for unincorporated areas
Summary
The Planning Zone Committee approved a motion to set a new adequate facilities tax for commercial buildings in unincorporated Wilson County at $0.50 per square foot up to 12,000 sq ft and $2.00 per square foot above that, with no cap; the measure will be forwarded to the full County Commission for final action.
The Wilson County Planning Zone Committee voted to approve a change to the county's adequate facilities tax for commercial construction in unincorporated areas, setting the tax at $0.50 per square foot for buildings up to 12,000 square feet and $2.00 per square foot for all square footage above 12,000, with no overall cap. The committee chair announced the measure will be forwarded to the full County Commission for consideration.
The committee heard data and recommendations from the county's business recruitment staff, who presented a historical analysis of economic development projects and comparable rates in neighboring counties. "I strongly suggest is that we lower the rate and broaden the base," said Corey, a business recruiter who led the presentation, arguing a broader base with a moderate rate would keep the county competitive while generating more revenue. The presenter said a 45'cent rate capped at 500,000 square feet would have generated roughly $3 million more in unincorporated-area revenue in the period examined and estimated development inside municipalities could multiply that figure.
Why it matters: the adequate facilities tax (AFT) is charged on new commercial and industrial construction in unincorporated Wilson County and is intended to help fund capital and school debt tied to growth. Committee members debated competitiveness with nearby counties (Robertson, Rutherford, Murray, Sumner, Williamson) and whether the county risks pricing large projects out by setting rates or caps too high.
Committee discussion focused on competitive positioning, the distribution of AFT revenues, and caps that neighboring counties use. One committee member warned against using the AFT as a short-term "poison pill" to block development, noting abusive or sudden large increases could invite complaints to state legislators and risk the county's private act. The presenter noted that historically 67% of projects with heavy infrastructure needs exceeded 150,000 square feet, and that a low cap could exempt many of the county's most infrastructure-intensive prospects.
A motion to adopt the AFT structure described above was moved and carried by the committee. Committee members recorded three opposing votes; other members voted in favor. The motion will be forwarded to the full County Commission for a final vote.
The committee also discussed how any additional AFT revenue would be allocated. The presenter recommended setting aside a portion for commercial facilities (roads, water, sewer, broadband, electrical substations) rather than allocating all increases to school debt. The committee did not finalize allocation percentages and asked that the County Commission and relevant departments (schools, road commission) be involved if the full commission considers the ordinance change.
The vote considered in committee affects only unincorporated-area development; the presenter noted he did not have complete data on potential revenue in municipalities (Mount Juliet, Lebanon, Watertown). The committee chair and staff said the full County Commission retains authority to accept, amend, or reject the committee's recommendation.
The committee asked staff to prepare the ordinance language and revenue estimates for the County Commission and to include road and school officials in follow-up discussions. The committee did not adopt final allocation percentages for any additional revenue.
