Maynard targets development fees with second meeting

Council member puts light on cost of rezoning, developing infill projects

Email | Print By Kyle Swenson

01-06-2009 9:57 PM — At-large Councilman Jerry Maynard’s second special economic development meeting Tuesday night highlighted issues with Metro’s tax and fee structure that he says may be hindering development.

Maynard put forth seven suggested areas of interest — ranging from plans for development of affordable housing and infill development in blighted areas to taking advantage of federal economic stimulus funds and requiring Metro employees live in Davidson County — that he felt would best spur economic development in Metro.

The public meeting, which was held immediately prior to the regular Metro Council meeting, attracted a few Council members, Metro Finance Richard Riebeling and Economic and Community Development Director Paul Ney.

The majority of the discussion turned to the possibility that red tape and fees might be keeping developers from blighted areas.

But both Riebeling and Ney pointed out that many of the issues Maynard would like to address fall under the scope of the Metro Development and Housing Agency. No one from that agency was present at the meeting.

Councilman Eric Crafton, who spoke often throughout the discussion, said that the current structures are more often than not a hindrance to developers.

“Part of the problem is that if you want to do a project here in Nashville, if it involves any rezoning, it’s a very lengthy process and a very expensive process,” Crafton said.

Maynard also suggested a comprehensive review of fees charged to developers for land use changes and development and evaluating the feasibility of eliminating the Urban Services District and the General Services District to create one uniform tax rate.

Riebeling questioned the feasibility of a complete overhaul.

“It’s difficult to change any fees or structures in the middle of a budget year when your budget is based on a certain revenue coming in,” Riebeling said.

Ney also questioned the feasibility of combining the Urban Service Districts and General Service Districts.

“I don’t want to be dismissive of some of these, but a few of these ideas when I saw them I wasn’t very clear if they stick with anything of what is our view of economic development. Maybe they’re a little broader,” he said.

Despite the reserved reaction to his suggestions, Maynard was positive about the discussion. He said the next course of action is to research the specific data regarding how competitive Davidson County is at keeping working residents and attracting development — not just large scale projects, but smaller sized infill development.

“For example, how many people have we lost who have gone to surrounding counties because they couldn’t afford housing in Davidson?” he said. “And we need to look at how many small developments out there that are not so much going to another county, but just don’t get done because of how we operate?”