Trousdale County commissioners review draft motor-vehicle (wheel) tax to fund jail, school projects

Trousdale County commissioners spent the bulk of their work session examining a draft ordinance that would levy a countywide motor-vehicle (commonly called a "wheel") tax to raise revenue for capital projects, including a proposed jail and school needs.

Mister Beller, who introduced the ordinance as a draft for consideration, told the commission "it's for your consideration" and emphasized the proposal was a draft. He walked commissioners through sample rates highlighted in the draft: $80 for certain motor vehicles and $50 for other vehicle classes such as motorcycles and low-speed vehicles, and he said the ordinance includes a 20-year sunset provision.

Rosalie and staff-provided estimates were cited during the discussion. One staff figure presented was 11,410 registered vehicles in the class that would pay the $80 rate, producing a gross figure of about $912,800 at full compliance. Staff and commissioners repeatedly cautioned collections would be below 100 percent and that motor-driven bicycles, scooters and side-by-sides were not reliably enumerated by state data.

Mister Beller also described procedural requirements in the draft, saying the ordinance as written would require three consecutive regularly scheduled readings and a supermajority to pass. He recommended a public-information effort if the commission pursues the tax, arguing "if the folks understand what it's going toward ... the likelihood of referendum doesn't become necessary." (Mister Beller)

Several commissioners urged caution. Commissioner Jerry Ford said the county already added roughly 12% to the budget this year for raises and bonuses and warned "we can't keep falling back on the property owners in this county." Commissioner Thomas and others raised the question of whether the commission should adopt such a tax directly or place it before voters, with Commissioner Chris saying he now leans toward a referendum given a split body and an upcoming election.

Commissioners pressed staff on allocation and accounting. Commissioner Landon asked which fund the receipts would be deposited into and whether the county clerk's 5% or trustee allocations would affect net allocations; staff replied that jail capital outlay and general capital outlay would be held in fund 171 and that schools would likely need a new fund under 1140 (or could use 141 with a reserve) and recommended separating jail funds for transparency.

Members also discussed alternatives and broader financing. Commissioner Thomas suggested exploring revenue-producing projects such as amphitheaters that other local governments have used to generate ongoing revenue. Others suggested combining the wheel tax with other revenue sources (property tax pennies or a sales-tax measure) to cover large capital costs.

No vote or formal referral occurred at the work session. Commissioners were urged to take the draft back to constituents, review allocation details, and return with clearer fund-accounting recommendations and public engagement plans before a formal first reading or any vote.

The commission’s next procedural steps, if they choose to proceed, would include clarifying exact rates and classes of vehicles covered, establishing the receiving fund(s) and accounting method, confirming required readings and legal thresholds (including whether state law imposes additional referendum requirements), and deciding whether to place the measure on a ballot or enact it by commission action.

Ending: The commission did not schedule a formal vote on the draft during the work session; members could revisit the proposal at upcoming meetings after additional staff follow-up and public outreach.