Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee forwards competing impact-fee ordinances to city board after heated debate
Summary
Hendersonville’s General Committee sent two competing impact-fee ordinances — one residential-only and one including commercial development — and a separate credits ordinance to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen with neutral recommendations after members raised concerns about commercial fees deterring retail development and asked staff for more data.
The Hendersonville General Committee voted Dec. 9 to forward two competing impact-fee ordinances and a separate ordinance establishing credits for assessed impact fees to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BOMA) with neutral recommendations, setting the stage for a fuller debate at the city board level.
Committee Chair Bob Garza said the ordinances — Ordinance 2025-25 (residential impact fees) and Ordinance 2025-23 (impact fees including commercial/industrial) — are similar but mutually exclusive and should be debated by the full board. Planning staff presented Ordinance 2025-26, a stand‑alone ordinance that would establish credits developers could claim for certain public improvements.
The planning director explained credits are legally required when impact fees are adopted and described how credits would work: when a developer builds an improvement that benefits the broader transportation system — for example, an intersection improvement or turn lane — that work could generate a credit against an impact fee. Staff also said updated permit and build‑out forecasts (including current population figures and projectable build-out timelines) will be available in January to inform BOMA’s decision.
Several aldermen expressed concern about applying impact fees to commercial development. “I won’t be voting for any impact fee for commercial businesses,” Chair Garza said, arguing that retailers bring sales tax, higher property-tax yields and jobs and that fees could push prospective businesses to nearby jurisdictions. Committee members cited examples such as Costco and nearby cities (Gallatin, Goodlettsville, Madison) to argue that a commercial impact fee might influence where large retailers locate.
Staff responded that large commercial developments typically must complete traffic‑impact studies and construct required on‑site improvements — such as turn lanes or traffic signals — as part of their projects, and that when improvements are built as part of development the immediate transportation benefit is realized without fee collection. The discussion also covered credit mechanisms and incentives cities sometimes use to encourage large projects while ensuring infrastructure needs are met.
After discussing procedural options — including debating both ordinances in committee or letting BOMA choose between them, or offering substitute amendments — the committee voted to forward both ordinances and the credits ordinance with neutral recommendations so the full board can decide which approach to adopt.
The next formal step is BOMA consideration, where members can vote on one ordinance, propose amendments or select a substitute. Staff said they will supply updated forecasts and additional financial detail before the board meets.
