AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 67, Chapter 4, Part 29, relative to privilege tax on property development.
HB2323 amends Tennessee’s privilege tax on property development to allow a municipality, by ordinance, to levy a development tax within its boundaries. The bill defines “municipality” for this purpose as an incorporated city or town that does not have a school system or LEA within its jurisdiction. Any local tax adopted under the bill must follow the rate, terms, conditions, and limitations already set out in existing law for development privilege taxes.
Revenue collected under the bill would be remitted to a municipal official designated by ordinance, deposited into a fund chosen by the governing body, and used exclusively for a capital improvement program. The permitted uses are limited to construction and improvement of roads, streets, sidewalks, trails, and other similar transportation infrastructure within the municipality. The bill also authorizes municipalities to adopt administrative rules, forms, and procedures to implement and enforce the tax.
The bill would expand local taxing authority by adding a new option for certain municipalities to impose a development privilege tax under Title 67, Chapter 4, Part 29. It would not create a new statewide tax, but would authorize eligible municipalities to collect and dedicate revenues for transportation-related capital projects, while leaving the existing statutory framework for rate and administration largely intact. The measure would affect developers and property development activity in municipalities that choose to adopt the tax, as well as local governments seeking a dedicated infrastructure funding source.
The bill appears to have had mixed to negative support in committee. It advanced out of several earlier committees and subcommittees, including a narrow 9-8 recommendation in the House State & Local Government Committee and a 7-4 recommendation in the Finance, Ways, and Means Subcommittee, but it ultimately failed in the House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee by a 12-14 vote. That pattern suggests the proposal was considered seriously but did not secure broad enough support at the final committee stage.
The main point of contention appears to have been whether municipalities should be granted additional authority to tax development and dedicate the proceeds to infrastructure. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to fund roads, sidewalks, trails, and related improvements without relying solely on general revenues, while opponents likely raised concerns about increasing costs on development, local tax burdens, or the scope of municipal taxing power. The close committee votes before the final failure indicate disagreement over the balance between local infrastructure funding needs and the potential impact on developers and economic activity.