Planning Commission · Meeting · Nov 3, 2026
Tue, Nov 3, 2026
Reviews land-use requests, subdivision plats, and long-range growth plans for unincorporated areas of Hickman County.
Listen
Play the meeting audio here. Use the speed controls if you want to move through it faster.
Speed
This outline was generated by an LLM from a transcript and may contain errors or inaccuracies. Prefer the original recording when available.
Planning Commission members deferred action on adopting updated building and related codes after members said they lacked the actual resolution text in hand, despite staff warning the county is under a year-end deadline to stay within the state’s seven-year code window. The discussion laid out a significant package: adoption of the 2024 International Codes with local deletions and substitutions, especially using the 2009 Energy Code content inside the 2024 adoption framework to avoid stricter insulation and blower-door requirements and to stay aligned with expected Tennessee limits. The deferral passed 7–3, leaving timing pressure because county commission must read the measure twice.
The commission then unanimously approved a new permit-fee schedule, adding permitting for decks and pools, setting a $0.60 per square foot fee for new residential construction under roof, a $0.30 rate for remodels and similar work, a $75 reinspection fee after a failed follow-up, and doubled fees for work begun without permits. Members also unanimously approved a one-year moratorium on new data centers so the county can draft siting and operating rules before any project proceeds under current permissive zoning. Other notable threads included pool safety alarms and fencing, floodplain references tied to FEMA figures rather than ICC text, rollout of Cloudpermit, concerns about distributing resolutions with agendas, and a request that fire departments be notified earlier about subdivisions and major development so they can plan for water supply and response needs.
New Business / Agenda Items
Building and code adoption discussion
- State code compliance discussion opened with staff explaining the county must stay within seven years of the most current code book, and that once the 2027 edition is released on February 1 the county’s current 2018 code set will be out of compliance under state law.
- Staff said the state had not yet adopted its version of the new code package and likely would not until later in the spring, but that waiting for the state and then copying its action was no longer workable because the county still had to update on time.
- Proposed code package described as adoption of the 2024 International Codes, including the International Residential Code, commercial building code, plumbing, mechanical, fuel gas, plus added adoption of the International Energy Code, Swimming Pool Code, Property Maintenance Code, and accessibility / usable buildings provisions tied to ADA requirements.
- Energy code explanation was the most detailed and contentious policy point:
- Staff said the residential and commercial books reference the International Energy Code, but the county has not formally adopted that code.
- The proposal would adopt the 2024 energy code “cover” but replace its substantive provisions with the 2009 Energy Code language through deletions and insertions.
- Justification was to preserve current insulation expectations—roughly wall insulation at 13 and ceiling insulation at 38—and avoid mandatory blower-door testing.
- Staff said the county cannot be more stringent than the state, and the state is expected to keep the older 2009 energy provisions even if it adopts the 2024 framework.
- A member asked whether the stricter 2024 energy rules would effectively force spray-foam insulation over batt insulation; staff confirmed the 2024 code is stricter and said that was why the proposal backed down to the 2009 energy provisions.
- Staff also highlighted key local residential changes within the proposed 2024 IRC:
- Floodplain construction would follow local FEMA figures rather than International Code Council values.
- Section 309 on mandatory sprinkler systems in one- and two-family dwellings would be deleted in full.
- If a sprinkler system is voluntarily installed, it must comply with NFPA standards.
- Members clarified there was no intervening 2021 code edition being adopted here; the county is moving from 2018 to 2024, while 2027 is forthcoming but not yet available or approved.
- Procedural problem emerged when members realized not everyone had the actual code resolution in front of them:
- One member said the only resolution copy received concerned the data center item, not code adoption.
- Another said the measure should be tabled or deferred so members could study the language.
- Staff urged action because of the deadline and said the state fire marshal had already approved the text as written, but acknowledged county commission would still need two readings.
- Motion made and seconded to defer consideration of the code adoption to the next meeting so all members could review the text.
- Roll-call vote on deferral: 7 yes, 3 no, with one absence.
- Outcome:
- Code adoption deferred to the next meeting.
- Delay creates timing risk because county commission would need two readings, making January the earliest possible final county action if planning commission waits until the next month.
Permit fee schedule
- The commission next took up proposed building permit fee changes for residential and commercial work.
- Staff said the county’s current fee structure undervalues construction and is lower than nearby jurisdictions:
- Current living-space valuation is based on $90 per square foot.
- Staff said it is unrealistic to build at that figure now.
- Example given: a house in Ritchie Farms was permitted for $637 based on a calculated valuation of $158,099, while the property assessor had already valued that same project at $441,762.
- Main residential proposal:
- Replace the current complex formula with a simpler square-foot method.
- New home construction, manufactured homes, modular homes, and additions: $0.60 per square foot for anything under roof.
- Remodels, unfinished basements, and accessory structures: $0.30 per square foot.
- Staff justified the simplification partly as an administrative improvement:
- Current process requires office staff to calculate separate values for living area, unfinished basement, garages, and covered porches, then apply a fee table.
- Proposed system would be easier for office staff and better suited to the upcoming Cloudpermit software rollout.
- A member questioned whether the adequate facilities tax line needed clarification because the draft could be read inconsistently with the “anything under roof” language used elsewhere.
- Staff agreed the draft should more clearly distinguish that the adequate facilities tax applies to heated and cooled space.
- Fee examples and concerns:
- A member compared the proposal to a hypothetical $300,000 home and noted that a straight square-foot fee could produce different outcomes depending on project size and cost per square foot.
- Staff replied that the proposal intentionally shifts from valuation-based calculations to square-foot calculations, so it is not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison.
- For the Ritchie Farms example, current fee $637 would become about $1,288.20 under the proposal because porches under roof are included.
- New fee items added to the county schedule:
- Pools and decks would now require permits.
- Single-wide mobile homes: current $250, proposed $500 one-time fee.
- In-ground pools: proposed $250 fee, intended to cover about three inspections.
- Reinspection fee: $75 for a second follow-up after failed corrections remain unaddressed.
- Work started before permit issuance: permit fee doubled.
- Pool permitting rationale:
- Staff said state law requires a splash alarm for pools over 36 inches high.
- Future adoption of the swimming pool code would also bring fence standards for in-ground pools: minimum 4-foot barrier and pickets less than 4 inches apart.
- Above-ground pools can serve as their own barrier if they are a continuous 48 inches high; if partly banked into a slope and effectively lower than that, fencing would be required.
- Staff framed this primarily as a life-safety issue to prevent drownings and to document county inspection efforts.
- Deck permitting rationale:
- Staff said recent field observations showed some decks were being attached improperly, including fastening into brick with Tapcons rather than using through-bolts or lag bolts into a ledger as required by code.
- Reinspection discussion:
- A member asked why the first reinspection after corrections would remain free when other inspection trades often charge on the next trip.
- Staff said the goal was to allow one correction visit without charge because most homes will have some rough-framing correction items, but to deter repeated incomplete work by charging on the next return visit.
- Commercial permit proposal:
- Staff said the county’s current commercial valuation, around $48 per square foot, is no longer realistic.
- Rather than forcing office staff to classify occupancy and mixed uses from incomplete information, the proposal would require applicants to submit an awarded contract bid or contractor letterhead showing project cost.
- Commercial permit fees would then be based on that documented cost using the revised fee table.
- Motion made and seconded to approve the proposed permit fee schedule.
- Roll-call vote: 11 yes, 0 no.
- Outcome: permit fee schedule approved unanimously.
Deck and swimming pool permitting follow-up
- After the fee vote, members briefly revisited whether pool and deck permitting would affect existing installations.
- Staff said the proposal would apply prospectively, beginning after county commission approval, potentially January 2 if the commission passes it in December.
- Existing pools would not be forced to retrofit alarms or otherwise come into compliance under this proposal.
- A member asked whether a homeowner with an existing house who later decides to install a pool would need a permit under the new system; staff said yes.
- Enforcement limits were acknowledged:
- Members noted it could be hard to enforce permits for homeowner-installed pools and decks.
- Staff said the county cannot catch everything but needs to show the state fire marshal that it is trying, especially because permit practices are reviewed in a periodic audit.
- Staff also emphasized that if an owner avoids the permit, responsibility falls on the owner rather than on the county for noncompliance.
- Staff reiterated that the state fire marshal’s office had approved the proposed code-resolution language, even though the planning commission had just deferred acting on it.
Data center moratorium
- The commission then considered a proposed resolution imposing a temporary moratorium on new data centers.
- The resolution was described as a one-year temporary moratorium on construction of new data centers, with the data-center definition contained in the resolution text.
- Purpose of the moratorium:
- Give the planning commission time to study data centers and draft setbacks, standards, permit procedures, and other regulations.
- Allow the county commission to later adopt those rules, at which point the moratorium could end earlier than one year.
- Members said the issue had become politically prominent and often produces conflicting claims about water use, power use, noise, tax value, and employment.
- One member supported the moratorium because current zoning would not let the county direct where a data center goes or impose special conditions if an applicant seeks one in agricultural zoning.
- Another member, drawing on personal experience starting up power systems for large data centers, pushed back on what he called widespread misinformation:
- He cited prior work on large facilities for companies like Microsoft and T-Mobile.
- He said large centers can consume major power—examples included 50 megawatts, 100 megawatts, and a Gallatin “metadata center” at 300 megawatts—but argued internet claims often exaggerate local utility impacts.
- He said he had spoken with Gallatin Public Utilities superintendent David Kellogg, who told him the Gallatin data center uses less than 2 percent of the utility’s water production and ranks about fourth in water use, roughly comparable to the jail.
- He contrasted that with large financial benefits, referencing an Elon Musk-related project in Memphis said to bring in $14 billion annually in property taxes, while the Gallatin facility reportedly brings about $1.8 million for 20 years under a separate arrangement after utility-system upgrades.
- Noise and generator issues were also discussed in detail:
- Backup generators were identified as the main source of objectionable noise.
- One speaker said a large center could have 100 locomotive-sized generators.
- Sound attenuation is possible but expensive.
- Without local noise controls, a facility could create severe off-site impacts.
- An example from outside Austin, Texas, was cited where a facility allegedly produced 187 decibels continuously for 7 days and 12 hours, heard from 4 miles away.
- Broad consensus emerged that the county was not necessarily deciding it never wants a data center, but that it needs rules before one arrives.
- A member said the county should use the moratorium period to consult similarly sized counties and use CTAS planning resources as a starting point.
- County attorney Dan Mecklenborg noted the resolution places the responsibility on the planning commission to develop recommendations, and if those are ready in about six months they can move to county commission before the full year runs.
- Motion made and seconded to approve the moratorium resolution.
- Roll-call vote: 11 yes, 0 no.
- Outcome: one-year data center moratorium approved unanimously, subject to county commission action.
Meeting time discussion
- Members discussed whether regular planning commission meetings should remain at 6:30 or move to 6:00.
- Several members preferred keeping 6:30, citing travel difficulties, including getting in from Nashville.
- Outcome: no change; the commission kept the 6:30 meeting time.
Announcements
Fire department notice request
- A member reported that at a recent health and safety meeting, the president of the fire association asked for earlier notice when subdivisions, industrial buildings, commercial buildings, or other new development are being considered.
- Rationale was to let the relevant fire department evaluate water supply and prepare for service demands before projects are approved or built.
- The member asked whether, when new projects come before planning and zoning, he could contact the responsible fire department so its representatives could attend and be made aware.
- No objection was recorded.
Resolution distribution concern
- A member asked that resolutions be distributed at the same time as agendas rather than being handed out or introduced for same-night review and voting.
- He said he agreed with the data-center moratorium but still wanted more time in future to study four-page resolutions before a vote.
- Staff accepted the criticism, said the short turnaround was largely due to workload and catch-up conditions, and committed to doing better.
- Staff added that if materials cannot be sent out ahead of time, they should not be brought up for action.
- Staff again said the code resolution was unusually rushed because of the state fire marshal deadline.
Adjournment
- Motion and second to adjourn were made at the close of business.
Key figures and statistics
| Figure | Type | Context / topic |
|---|---|---|
| 7 years | Time period | State-law window for staying current with the most recent code book |
| 2027 | Year | Next code book becoming current beginning February 1 |
| February 1 | Date | Release timing for the 2027 code book |
| 2018 | Year | County’s current adopted code edition |
| 2024 | Year | Proposed code edition for adoption |
| 2009 | Year | Energy code content proposed to be inserted into the 2024 framework |
| 13 | Standard | Wall insulation level staff said would be preserved under the 2009 energy provisions |
| 38 | Standard | Ceiling insulation level staff said would be preserved under the 2009 energy provisions |
| 309 | Code section | Residential sprinkler section proposed for deletion |
| 7–3 | Vote | Planning Commission vote to defer code adoption |
| 2 | Readings | County Commission readings needed to pass the code resolution |
| $90 per square foot | Valuation rate | Current living-space valuation basis for permit calculations |
| $637 | Fee | Current permit charged on the example Ritchie Farms house |
| $158,099 | Valuation | Permit valuation assigned to the example Ritchie Farms house |
| $441,762 | Valuation | Assessor valuation already placed on the same example house |
| $250 | Fee | Current single-wide mobile home permit fee |
| $500 | Fee | Proposed single-wide mobile home permit fee |
| $0.60 per square foot | Fee rate | Approved residential rate for new construction, manufactured homes, modular homes, and additions under roof |
| $0.30 per square foot | Fee rate | Approved residential rate for remodels, unfinished basements, and accessory structures |
| 36 inches | Threshold | Pool height triggering splash-alarm requirement under state law as described |
| $250 | Fee | Proposed in-ground pool permit fee |
| 3 inspections | Inspection count | Approximate number of visits the in-ground pool fee was meant to cover |
| 4 feet | Height | Minimum fence height described for in-ground pools under the swimming pool code |
| 4 inches | Spacing | Maximum picket spacing described for pool fencing |
| 48 inches | Height | Above-ground pool height that can serve as its own barrier if continuous |
| $75 | Fee | Reinspection charge for a second failed follow-up visit |
| 2 months | Time period | Staff’s observation period for seeing code-compliance improvement in the field |
| 7 inspections | Inspection count | Typical number of inspections on new construction |
| $48 per square foot | Valuation rate | Current commercial-building valuation staff said is outdated |
| $1,288.20 | Fee | Example permit fee for the Ritchie Farms house under the proposed method |
| 11–0 | Vote | Planning Commission vote approving the permit fee proposal |
| January 2 | Date | Possible start date for new pool/deck permitting if county commission acts in December |
| 3 years | Time period | State fire marshal audit cycle mentioned for the program |
| 1 year | Time period | Length of approved data center moratorium |
| 50 megawatts | Capacity | Example size of large data centers discussed |
| 100 megawatts | Capacity | Example size of large data centers discussed |
| 300 megawatts | Capacity | Size cited for a Gallatin data center |
| less than 2 percent | Percentage | Gallatin utility water production reportedly used by the data center |
| 4th | Ranking | Water-use ranking reportedly held by the Gallatin data center |
| $14 billion | Revenue claim | Property-tax figure cited for an Elon Musk-related Memphis data center project |
| $1.8 million | Revenue claim | Gallatin data center tax/payment figure cited |
| 20 years | Time period | Length of Gallatin arrangement mentioned |
| $150 million per year | Utility cost | Power bill figure cited for the Gallatin center |
| 100 | Equipment count | Number of locomotive-sized backup generators cited for a large center |
| 80 decibels | Noise level | Sound level one speaker said could be achieved with attenuation |
| 187 decibels | Noise level | Noise level cited in the Texas example |
| 7 days and 12 hours | Time period | Duration cited for the Texas generator-noise example |
| 4 miles | Distance | Distance from which the Texas noise example was reportedly heard |
| 6 months | Time period | Possible shorter timeline to bring data-center recommendations forward |
| 90 days | Time period | Time one member said it realistically takes to move something through now |
| 11–0 | Vote | Planning Commission vote approving the data center moratorium |
| 6:30 | Meeting time | Existing meeting time retained by the commission |
| 6:00 | Meeting time | Alternative meeting time discussed and not adopted |
| 4 years | Time period | Length of time one member said he had been attending periodically before joining |
External vendors, brands, and software
| Name | Type | Context / topic |
|---|---|---|
| International Code Council | Company | Source organization for the international code books and tables referenced in the code-adoption discussion |
| FEMA | Company | Floodplain construction references would use local FEMA amounts rather than ICC values |
| NFPA | Company | Standard cited for voluntary residential sprinkler installations |
| Cloudpermit | Software | Permit software scheduled to go live in the office before public rollout |
| Watts | Company | Pool company staff said would be notified by email if pool-permit changes are adopted |
| Pool and Spa Depot | Company | Pool company staff said would be notified by email if pool-permit changes are adopted |
| Microsoft | Company | Example company used in discussion of large data center experience |
| T-Mobile | Company | Example company used in discussion of large data center experience |
| CTAS | Company | Planning resource mentioned as having model material or a starting point on data centers |
Laws and policies
| Citation / name | Level | Type | Context / topic |
|---|---|---|---|
| seven-year rule | State | Law | State-law requirement that local codes stay within seven years of the most current code book |
| 2024 International Residential Code | State | Code | Proposed residential code adoption with local deletions and insertions |
| 2024 International Building Code | State | Code | Proposed commercial building code adoption |
| International Plumbing Code | State | Code | Included in the proposed code package |
| International Mechanical Code | State | Code | Included in the proposed code package |
| International Fuel Gas Code | State | Code | Included in the proposed code package |
| International Energy Code | State | Code | Proposed for adoption in 2024 form, with 2009 content inserted locally |
| Swimming Pool Code | State | Code | Proposed adoption to govern barriers and related pool safety items |
| Property Maintenance Code | State | Code | Proposed addition to the county’s code package |
| ADA | Federal | Law | Accessibility / usable buildings provisions described as ADA-related in the code package |
| 2009 Energy Code | State | Code | Older substantive energy requirements proposed to replace 2024 energy provisions locally |
| Section 309 | State | Code | Residential sprinkler requirement section proposed for deletion from the adopted code |
| state law requiring pool splash alarms | State | Law | Requirement described for pools over 36 inches high |
| state fire marshal approval / audit requirements | State | Regulation | Staff said the fire marshal approved the code text and audits the local program every three years |
Files
This document is a proposed building permit fee schedule from the Hickman County Planning and Zoning Office, dated November 3, 2026. It outlines various fees associated with residential, commercial, and industrial building permits, including specific costs based on total valuation and square footage for different types of structures. Additionally, it includes information on mobile home permit fees and the Adequate Facilities Tax, which must be paid before a building permit is issued. The document also references a resolution establishing a temporary moratorium on new data center development, indicating ongoing regulatory considerations in the county. This excerpt represents only the beginning of the file, and further details may be present in subsequent pages.
What we have to do, and this is what state law, and the gentleman back here was correct, we have to be within seven years of the most current book. The most current book is going to be the 2027, beginning February 1st. That's going to be nationwide. Currently, we're at 2018 code, so we need to move up to be within compliance within the state of Tennessee. The state has not yet passed their version of this, and in years past, they have allowed us the opportunity to wait on them so that we could just copy and paste basically their adoption in the legislature. That's not the case this year, even though they have not passed it, and probably won't pass it until later in the spring, we're still going to be made to do that. So what this does, it gets us to adopt, if we pass it here, and present it to the county commission. Adopting of the 24. There are a couple things that we have included for your consideration and approval. In the past resolution, we have passed the International Residential Code, the Building Code, which is the commercial, the plumbing, the mechanical, and we passed the Fuel Gas Code. Currently, in this proposal that we have, we have included the International Energy Code, the Swimming Pool Code, the Property Maintenance Code, and the Assessable and Usable Buildings, which is the ADA for handicapped persons. The thinking behind the Energy and Conservation Code is that in both books, so the residential and the commercial, it references the International Energy Code, but we don't have it passed currently. Especially in the commercial portion of it, they do not have the tables for the insulation and things that they do in the Energy Code. The Energy Code is a little bit crazy in how they do it. We will be adopting the 2024, but you basically are just adopting the cover. You rip the guts of it out, and we will, if you'll look through here, we insert the 2009 Energy Code so that we can keep the wall insulation at 13, basically the ceiling insulation at 38, and it does not require a blower test. The 2024s are much more stringent than what the 18, basically what the 9s are, but by state law, we cannot be more stringent than what the state is going to be, and the state is only going to pass the 2009s. The cover of the 24, but the guts of the 2009. Yes, sir? Would that require spray foam insulation instead of the bath insulation to meet those requirements? Is it a lot stricter insulation in the walls now? Yes, sir, it is. If we go by the 24s. That's why we back it up. Well, that's why the state is backing it up to the 9s. They did the same thing in the 18s. They passed the 18s before the state code, and then ripped that out and placed the 9s. The fenestration tables, the climate data, things of that nature that prevents us from having to do all the blower testing. It's mandatory if you pass the 24s, and even on the 24s, if you'll, one of the big differences between the 24 IRC, which is the residential code, and that 24, it's a requirement to have sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings, so we opt out of that, which is in section 309, it's on the second page. I don't have a copy of this. The second page of the code resolution. I don't think I got it. Resolution 26? 26-0-0. We didn't know. Okay. We'll have to talk to Casey. Well, that's fine. I just made sure I was the same document. The only resolution I have, Alan, is regarding the data center. Okay. Well, somebody can have my hashtag. I've looked at it long enough. I think I've got it memorized. Quick question, Alan. No, this is data center. Oh, what did you mean? I'm sorry. The code. The code. Oh. Okay, Alan, I've got a question about... So, we're currently at 18. We've got to adopt 24 because of the seven-year rule. Yes, sir. Even though in the 24, they've gone back and some of the 24 are always adhering to 2009, based on the state. The energy code book, specifically. The 24 residential code and the 24 building code. The building code, there are not going to be any adjustments to that. That's commercial. Okay. In the residential code, we have... You'll see on the second page, we have replaced, for instance, for the floodplain construction, we're going to go by our FEMA amounts, not by what International Code Council has. We're deleting section 309, which is sprinkler systems, in its entirety. Okay. If you do put one in there, you have to do it per the NFPA. Right. But we're not going to make you do it. Okay. So, we had to eliminate either of those. The energy code is the only one where it's crazy. You adopt the cover, and in our notes, and through the deletions and insertions, we just rip it out and put the 2009 in it, so that we can stay where we're at right now. Okay. We got in trouble with my former place of work. We were more stringent than the state, and they... Slapped your hand. Hammered us. No, it wasn't a slap. It was a hammer. Yeah. They made us stand there and take it for a while. So... They've been that way all along. Is that where you came from? Yes. Up until the legislature passed the law about third-party inspections, they included the not being more stringent than the state in that portion as well. Oh, okay. I just know, historically, they've been that way. Oh, historically, yeah. And they were requiring, at that time, they were requiring a blower door test. The state of Tennessee wasn't, but the city of Brentwood was. The city of Brentwood, yeah. Do you want to go get more copies? Do we need more copies of the resolution? Can I get an email from that? Do we need more copies if we're going to actually pass a resolution? Because I don't have... I would actually make the motion we table that, that we have copies to study. I second that. And defer it to the next one. Can I... You can go get it now. You can go get it now. Please. If I could tell you one thing, we're under the gun on this. If we... This was not on the budget and was not thought of by my predecessor. So, when I came in, we have until the end of the year to get this passed. I can get... We can vote on it next month, maybe. Sure. I would also like to add, going from 18 to 24, was there a 21 in between there? No. No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. But there will be a 27, right? The 27 is in publication and will be released February the 1st. Got you. We could go to that, but... We can't go to it because it hasn't been approved yet. Correct. Right. But the 24 hasn't been approved yet either. It's just been on the table with the state. The 24 has not approved the state, but it has gone through ICC. The state just has not adopted that one yet. They're still working on the 18s. And until the legislature comes into session and whatever fits on their schedule and agenda, when the fire marshal's plate of things that they need come up, it won't be approved. So it could be the last of their session before they get it approved. It doesn't stop us from having to be up to date. But this is something, though, that we can get. Is this something Brooke can send us? She can send it to you, but it's going to take two readings of the county commission to pass it. To pass it. That's my dilemma at this point. If we wait until next month to pass it. It can't get approved in January at the earliest because it has to be voted twice or read twice. What happens if we don't do it? The fire marshal's office will pay me a visit. I know we're voting on something we're not going to sustain. That's why I make the motion to defer. I mean, if Brooke's bringing, have you prepared a resolution to this effect? It was in a resolution format. Okay, and 26. Have people received the resolution? No, there's just one copy today. So I think, can we defer it to later in the meeting and go along with a couple of the other items? Can I have a, do I need a motion to defer it? I would to see if that's what they want to do or if they want to defer it to another. Do we have a motion? It wasn't seconded. I thought it was sent out in a package. It was emailed. But it may not have been. We may have a second to the motion. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to defer the consideration of the International Code's adoption until what, later in the meeting or until December? Well, the motion I made was to defer it to the next meeting so everybody could have a chance to study it for the time being. Okay. Motion and second to defer to the next meeting. And, okay, any discussion? Okay. Do we need a roll call? I would. All right. Let's do a roll call, Allen. Jason Carter? Yes. Tony Taylor? Yes. Tommy Capps? Yes. Dan Mecklenburg? Yes. Jeff Shurt? Yes. Will Mayberry? No. Eddie Boone? No. Hank Maddox? Yes. Ethan Hudgins? Yes. Garren Gray? No. And Jim Tanner is absent. Seven yeses, three noes. Okay. The motion passes. We'll defer that. All right. Next item on the agenda is discussion regarding the permit fees. And, Allen, I think we have information on that here, a schedule of the proposed building permit fees. Yes, sir. For the commercial and residential. I guess to make sure that you all have this, do you have a copy of what we're doing currently now? Yes. We also hope you have a copy of the proposed, what we're proposing, and how this came about. I mean, we had looked at it when I came in, just knowing that we were a little bit cheaper than some of the other municipalities around. But our valuations are based currently on $90 a square foot for living space is what we've built it at, and I'm not sure that you can build anything for $90 a square foot. But the cost of construction items you can see on our current, which is on the bottom of page one and the top of page two. We have a house that I've done inspections on in Ritchie Farms, and the permit was for $637 to build the house. Based on our valuations, the house comes up to a total valuation of $158,099. The property assessor has already taken the building plans, and he has assessed this property already at $441,762. So that's how far off we are from valuations based off what we are doing. What I have proposed before you is to take the fees that you see before you. Mobile homes right now, single-wise, are currently based at $250. The proposal is for a $500 one-time fee for the mobile, single-wise. Moving our new construction, I've tried to simplify this a little bit because what the girls have to do in the office is take these numbers here and look at the plans, see how much living space it is, and multiply that times 90. If there's an unfinished basement in it, take the square footage and multiply that times 15. And then garages are at 37, and covered porches they take at 13. They get the valuation for that, and then they have to come to the table that you see on page one and look at that and going across and figuring out, for instance, if it's a $300,000 home, it would be $460 for the first $100,000, and then $3 for each additional $1,000 after that. The proposal that we have would be just to take new home construction, manufactured homes, modular homes and additions, and make it a $0.60 per square foot for anything under roof. The remodels, unfinished basements, accessory structures would be at $0.30 per square foot. The next two are asking where we put in number C for the pools and decks. We do not currently permit pools, and we do not currently permit decks. The pools, it's state law that they are required to have a splash alarm for anything that is over 36 inches in height for a pool. So if it's a kiddie pool, it doesn't count. But if it's 36 inches high, it must have an alarm system or alarm in the pool that when somebody jumps in and splashes, it's basically for safety for a child, that you hear it go off. That would be a one-time visit for us for an inspection. So just something to get it on the books for safety purposes and not have someone drown that we did not inspect. In-ground pools, I have it proposed for $2.50. That would be basically three inspections that would take care of us on that. If we adopt the swimming pool code next month, there's fence regulations that go with that to where you have to have a 4-foot fence around anything in-ground especially. It has to be a minimum 4 feet with the pickets less than 4 inches apart. Above-ground pools, if they are 48 inches high and they are continual 48, they can act as their own barrier. If they are dug into the bank like a lot of them would be here because you're on the slope and you have anything less than 48, you have to have that fenced off to where someone can't get in it. So that's what we would basically be checking is life safety for these pools. The in-ground pools, we don't have a lot of them right now. We will see more of them as the builders from Fairview come this way and especially on the east end of the county, there's going to be a lot of them that's going to have in-ground pools with them. So from a safety standpoint, that's more than not really trying to permit something but just trying to take care of our time and travel time to go to it. Deck permits, we don't do it currently, but I have seen in my travel over the last two months, the attachment that they're using on decks is not per code. They should be through-bolting, should be lag-bolting into the ledger, and they're tap-conning into the brick, and brick is not an attachment source. And the rest of it is notes showing what we do for the adequate facilities tax. The re-inspection fee, that would be a $75 charge, and that would be on a second visit. If I come out there to do a rough framing and it has correction items and the next visit would be the first, there's no charge. But if you haven't corrected it on the first and I've got to come back on the second, that would be a $75 charge that needs to be paid for due schedules and inspections. And then work started prior to the permit. That's for any person that has started, did not get a permit. This is pretty much standard across middle Tennessee. It doesn't mean it has to be standard here, but the permits are usually doubled if you start it, and we find out that you've done that without bringing in the proper paperwork. So that's what we have proposed for residential. On commercial, we in the past or currently, if you'll look on page 3- Can we go back for a second? I'm sorry. On the adequate facilities tax, I'm just curious because it says $1 per square foot. Is that under a roof, heated, or just heated and cooled? Because it's not clear there. I know how the old one's written, but I don't know what that means. Heated and cooled, it's not broken. Like I said, it's not very clear because up at the top, it's basically anything under a roof. And then also down here, we don't clarify it, which one it is. Well, that's my fault. I wrote that. Well, that's fine. I'm just trying to make sure we get it clear so it's not- that later we're not going, somebody's going- The AMT is heated and cooled space, correct? Yes. Okay. I just think we might want to clarify because under the old one, I get it's pretty clear because everything is laid out. But when you look at under residential, the second line where it says basically everything under roof- Right. Then you come down here, somebody might or might not- Gotcha. And I can check- Does that make sense, Alan? Yes, sir. It does. Okay. Alan, I have a question. As far as new home construction residential at $0.60 per square foot, how does that- let's call it a $300,000 home, new construction, that's what, $1,800 for the $300? Well, taking this same house that we charged $637 for, which kind of got the ball rolling on thinking of this, I can give you some examples of what the permit would be. For instance, this house, if you went to Columbia, the permit fee for it is $1,932.30. Right. I just want to know what the difference between the proposed-
residential permit fee and our current the current permit that's $300,000 out we charge 600 well i'd have to do some figuring on 300 i can tell you on this one it was 637 is what we charged if we went to this proposal here it would be 1288 20 okay gotcha so about a dozen yeah how did you get to that because it appears that the only fee is based on valuation and you feel you based on square footage period i tried to make it a little bit simpler on the girls rather than having to to calculate and then go to the table that's why i'm gonna say apple to apple how 300,000 at one price and i mean i'm not disagreeing that it's by the square foot may be more fair than based on the valuation because that can vary depending on what you're looking at what you're thinking so a 2000 square foot house is now 1200 is what that says 60 cents a square foot correct plus your aft plus your a plus your a yeah so generally i'm not sure how that i presume we're raising the rates basically yes sir they are they're going up it's just not apples and apples it's apples and oranges it's kind of hard to see the difference um but let's say you got a three hundred thousand dollar house it's it's a thousand square feet three hundred dollars a square foot i mean i've seen that okay so a thousand square feet times sixty cents per square feet is six hundred six hundred dollars and here it would be a thousand six four sixty for the first one hundred thousand plus three dollars for each additional thousand or fraction thereof just two hundred thousand so um that'd be two hundred thousand times three is what six hundred uh six hundred dollars plus four sixty so it would be going down i'm trying to do the math in my head so um under that yes if you're taking a thousand square foot home yeah and you say you can build it for well let's let's say 250 i mean what's the square footage cost uh for new construction now it's between 200 and 300 thousand three hundred dollars a square foot i think i would guess that it's it's more than the 90 that we're currently valuing that we're doing right right but i'm not sure the square the sense per square foot gets us where we want to go uh based on uh just that sort of comparison i mean i think it would be helpful to the planning commission to have an example of what a current house new construction gets charged that versus what it will be charged that under the proposed and i don't i well that's what this one and i'm i may not be explaining about this house is what i based my example off of uh 1772 square feet with 375 feet of portions we charge 637 it's in it's in construction now okay if we went with the new proposal the permit fee would be 1,288 dollars and 20 cents how do you get to that if it's 60 cents per square foot times 1,700 you have to add the porches that are under roof oh porches under the roof okay so it's heated and it's a it's a straight everything under root it's straight figure that's why i was asking about that under roof a minute ago it's because right yeah it needs to be we're clarified we're well i'm not saying that i'm just saying but i haven't built houses two or three houses here in the county before it was based upon there was a fee for your living and then there's fee for your porches like my house now has probably almost 1200 square feet of porches right so i mean it was 13 $13 a square foot yeah that's what we're we're yeah so i mean but i wanted a lot of which is a whole different bargain but just saying this sort of makes it easier to follow because i'll promise you being your own general contractor trying to follow this was sort of crazy so you're taking you're pretty much taking four and bringing it down to one you're living area unfinished basement so you're taking you're pretty much taking four and bringing it down to one your living area unfinished basement garage and porches will all now be grouped as one at 60 cents instead of 90 15 correct correct we're trying to and some of this is based on starting november the 19th we are going to start our computer system i don't know if you all i'm sure you all were brought up with it but it was purchased before i got here but cloud permit we've been in training on that we will go live on the end on the 19th not public but we'll start using in the office we're hoping that the public will go live on it january 1 or january 2nd when we get back to work but it's a program that they will enter these numbers in whatever if we do nothing or if we change these numbers will be into where when they start the the girls or myself even if i'm in the office it'll calculate for them it'll calculate if they're online but we're not quite ready for the public portion of it yet the office portion will be ready for we hope in two weeks so that's the plan okay um i'll um ask the commission members whether we have motion to approve the proposed building permit fee schedule as presented by alan our secretary um he has presented to the commission all right alan i got a question so you're gonna do the first re-inspect without any charge correct okay if there's uh for instance i did a rough framing yesterday it had 10 items so when they call back i'll go back that won't be anything but if they have any portion of that 10 items that they didn't do because we're i'm trying my best to and i don't mind y'all taking a look at it they'll spell it out what needs to take place right i'm just curious because unlike any of all the other inspections they charge you the next next time as well right like an electrical or plumbing area that they come back to me they don't give you a free re-inspect right i mean so i guess i'm just asking because i know it's fuel and cost well and we're that's what i'm hoping that some of the if if it were to pass the addition of the additional fees will let us get the one visit if we have to go back again gotcha because you're hoping them knowing there's a knowing there's a charge they don't do it the first time though if you don't catch it then it's 75 dollars i mean that's not a lot to some but it'd be a lot to me if i had to pay 75 dollars for it but uh 75 dollars adds up it adds up if you don't of course we have seven inspections on new new construction right that we're doing so hopefully if it gets the point across you know we're willing to come once and the one visit most every house is going to have a little something on the rough framing a lot of times you'll get past the foundation and the slab inspections but then when you get in the rough framing insulation you'll find a few items not hopefully it's getting better i can tell you in two months time it's gotten better from when we first started in august so i did not get a chance i don't know if anybody has any questions about the commercial on the second page but i did we changed the table um we used the table that we had existing we just changed the value amounts for where it goes for the 1000 to 50 to 50 to 100 um and then rather than trying to especially with the ladies there in the office if you do not know the occupancy if you do not know what multi-use facility if they're going to do with commercial it's very difficult to start breaking it out so the proposal would have the applicant for the permit bring in a contracted bid that where they bid the job and it was awarded or bring in the cost of construction on the on the gc or the contractor's letterhead that says here's what it is and then we'll base off base base our permit off of that and then use the table instead of trying to do i think currently we're at 48 a square foot for a commercial building which won't buy you a whole lot these days if anything okay yeah uh i'm just gonna say number one apologize for being late that stuff come up and i'm trying to get that thing care of but um i'll go ahead and make the motion to approve the proposal i'll second second okay we have a motion to approve the proposal it's been seconded let's have a little poll vote jason carter yes tony taylor yes tommy caps yes dan mecklenburg yes jeff church yes will mayberry yes eddie boone yes andy maddox yes ethan hudgens yes darren graves yes and jim tanner yes 11 yeses zero notes okay 11 yes zero no motion passes okay uh the next item um on the agenda is discussions regarding permitting decks and swimming and that kind of got passed i guess from this okay so that's part of the uh international code situation it's part of our book on our part of what we just just adopted yes sir i got a quick question on that yes sir are they making everybody grandfather to fix that if they already have one or they just it's all new construction for the pools you know this would begin just if it passes the county commission in december then we would start that january second it doesn't it doesn't make people have to go back and splash forms no i mean that this would be basically just trying to catch new construction people coming in we will notify most of the pool companies the watts into the world pool and spa depot uh what our changes are because currently they don't think that we that we have anything so we'll notify them by email uh what's taking place if it passes the court so homeowner can put one in without getting them pulling a permit yes well in the county on the ag you can absolutely yeah or you could i don't know about that under the news under the deed i think you don't have a permit right from the new currently you don't currently we never know when a pool has been put but but a new one i mean once this goes in effect just a homeowner not a new construction just you know been living in the house for 15 years decided to put a pool in they got to get a permit yes sir how do we enforce that trust same thing with the decks that's gonna be pretty this we're just hopeful i mean what i hope that it does is it shows that we're trying um that's one of the questions on a on our audit that we're going to be every state fire marshal's office audits us every three years and we just need to show that we try we can't stop everybody we're just going to be hopeful that the ones that want to you know give us a chance to make sure that they've got things correct and then the ones that don't hope we don't have an accident but at least it keeps us if they didn't do it they're the ones in the wrong not us and i did forget to mention this is going back but uh the state fire marshal's office has approved the code as written i know we've deferred it to the next meeting but they approved the copy of it they have to be sent a copy for them to put their blessing on it so it was approved by them um okay so the um next item on the agenda is discussion regarding data centers and we do have a resolution proposed on that and um that's something that i worked on with alan and so i believe that could be in pretty good order and it's not inconsistent it's not the same as senator bill but it's not inconsistent with what they've done um so i'd like to you know open for any discussion on this alan i don't think i think what uh i'd originally said to you i tried to kind of plagiarize from other cities that had already done this um you added some legal stuff which i was glad of because i don't know that part of it so uh but it's not out of line with what other municipalities in this area have done and it's basically a one-year temporary moratorium on construction of new data centers and the definition of data centers is contained in the resolution it is you know basically goes into effect after it's approved by the commission and goes for one year you know during that time the planning commission would have the responsibility to essentially study the matter and develop you know appropriate standards and permit procedures and regulations that would govern the placement of the data centers and setbacks and things of that nature and obviously we would come to the commission with a recommendation during this moratorium period and present that for the commission to consider uh yes sir uh this was one of the things that we had talked about that uh that i heard a lot of campaigning for a commission of course it was red hot in the news especially with nashville and the zoo and things of that nature um study of data centers of course you get a lot of different information you know you get stuff on our portion you get you know it's hard to really nail down okay what what's the truth um you know that the you know how how much does it how much does it pull on the resources um does it pull on the resources enough that actually makes it worth it depending on the long term of how many people it's employing which it isn't very much data centers don't deploy that much so um then there's others that really don't pull that much data for a long time it's a i'm really glad to see us looking at this and i hope that we can vote and move it into at least a moratorium so that we can do more studying on it to make sure that we do have something in place um my guess is i'm in the next year i guess we'll talk to other counties that are our size um to see what they have what they're in what the state recommends to be able to put something together but i just appreciated the work y'all did on this and saying this yes it's like uh jim's saying there's a lot of misinformation out there before my commissioner career i was uh i was a startup engineer for uh power systems and we did a lot of data centers so when i was reading things on the internet i'm thinking this is really messed up this is not the way it is you know to the point now the ai data centers are aren't the bigger the big data centers i've done a lot of microsoft t-mobile a lot of things really big data centers 50 megawatt 100 megawatt and then we get in the metadata center in gallatin is 300 megawatt which is a lot of power and i took the opportunity today to call a gentleman named david kellogg he's the superintendent of public utilities and i said okay david you tell me how much water is that data center taking and he told me he said uh he said it takes less than two percent of what we make and he said and i said what does it compare to other things in gallatin he said it is number four for usage he said it uses about as much water as the jail right does it so you can see but you look on the internet this is blown on a lot of proportion uh these data centers the data the data centers that i would start up especially in southern virginia in the countryside these people would give them the land and say please put a data center because of the tax revenue they would get the data center in memphis right now uh the big one uh elon musk i think it's bringing in 14 billion dollars just time just property taxes a year the one in gallatin they've got some deal with uh with the county or the city they got they only get 1.8 million for some reason for 20 years because they went in and upgraded their complete sewer system to handle this and the guy david kellogg he told me he said this is a great benefit to our community he said it's a fantastic thing they went they went out of their way i know that tennessee now requires the data centers to pay a higher power cost to dregger you know facilities because just just because they they need it and they can pay for it they're paying the gallatin centers paying like 150 million dollars a year for power um so you can you can see you can see some of the benefits of it um i know starting these things up the noise comes from the generators the backup generator systems the metadata center has a hundred locomotive size generators and there are ways to attenuate that sound but it's very expensive i don't think they did it there and it also sits in the middle of like eight or nine hundred acre facility up there too so that is a problem i've had uh hospitals that i would start up and when i'm starting them up i'll be running generators all the time and all the neighbors would be
Like the hospital, they would be furious. They're thinking this is gonna be the normal, but once that's done, you may test the gyms every now and then if you get an outage or use them or whatever. I'm not saying, I don't want a data center in my backyard. I'm gonna tell you the honest with you, but I'm not really pro or con either way. I'm just saying a lot of misinformation is out there. And whether we need to weigh the benefits to the county, possible benefits of basically the cash cow for the data center to the county would be a great thing to have. Right, that's an excellent point. And I think that it gives us this moratorium, gives us time to have those discussions, make those determinations, and come up with a recommendation that is good for the county and is not based on the rumors or the internet chaos theories and all of that. It's something that is a necessary function within the coming internet. We're internet based now. We've got data centers for 20 years. And now we're going into AI and it's gonna be a big deal. And these things are gonna get built somewhere. And the question is, what protections should a county like Hickman have in order for that to be a responsible approach to a very charged situation right now? Yes. And for us to be able, and we've seen them talk about for us to be able to keep up with other countries. Data centers, it's something that's gotta happen, right? So, and the mayor showed me too, and I'm sure y'all have seen them, that the Center for Local Planning with CTAS has got that started for us. So there's a good starting point. So I don't see it being, I honestly don't even think it would take a year. I don't think it would. I think we could get through it fairly easy, but I am glad this is just to put something in play. I think the real thing you gotta keep in your mind is, as we're right now, if they come do it, we can't stop it, and we can't tell them where it needs to go. Right. That's the whole point of the moratorium, is so we can get our paperwork in order, and we can direct it where we want it. We're not, I don't think most of us are saying that we never want a data center. What we're saying right now is, we wanna put it where we want it to end up, not. Yeah, we need rules. Not as it is right now, if I come to Allen and say, I'm gonna put a data center in, and I wanna put it in A1, guess what? You can't tell them no, as it stands right now. Yeah. It doesn't matter if it's in your backyard, and they have them, and there's no noise pollution in this county. So if they make 175 decibels, and they run it for seven days a week like that just happened in Texas, outside of the city of Austin, it was 187 decibels, and it ran for seven days and 12 hours. Which one was that, do you remember? I don't know. I just know a friend of mine lives about four miles from it, and he said it sounded like a freight train the whole time. Yeah. He's four miles by the way of Birdflies. Mm-hm, I'll make the motion too. I mean, does that sort of make sense? That's what I think. Yeah, we need to put stipulations on it, put some rules in it. Right. There's a way to attenuate the sound. We can now get the sound down below 80 decimals. We just cost them a lot of money to do that. I mean- Or the generators. They're obviously running the generators for some reason for a while. Yeah, I wanted to mention that the way this resolution is set up, we're charged with getting together and developing recommendations. And if we come forward with a report in six months, then that can go to the county commission. And if they agree and adopt it, then the moratorium would end upon the adoption of the new regulations and zoning restrictions and things like that. It takes 60 days. It takes 90 days really to get something through now. Yeah. I'll make the motion. I'll second. Okay, so we've got a motion and a second. We'll have a roll call vote all in favor. Oh, well, a roll call vote. Jason Carter. Yes. Tony Taylor. Yes. Tommy Capps. Yes. Dan Mecklenburg. Yes. Jeff Church. Yes. Will Mayberry. Yes. Eddie Gunter. Yes. Andy Maddox. Yes. Ethan Hudgett. Yes. Darren Gray. Yes. Jim Tanner. Yes. 11 yeses, zero no. Great. Motion passes. And that then brings us to the last item that we included in the amended agenda. And that is just, you know, again, I'm new to the planning commission. We're doing this, I've been attending periodically for the last four years. And 6.30, the question is whether that's the preferred time or whether 6 o'clock would be okay. You know, or some other, whatever the group might have a preference for. Any discussion? Or are we good with 6.30? 6.30. 6.30. 6.30. Okay. I think it would be tough for some people. It's hard to get from Nashville. Could get from Nashville. But here, for some of y'all, we can figure it out. Figure it out. Okay. Great. All right. We'll just keep that as it is. We've got, we do not have any planner reports on the agenda for tonight. Amanda, I won't hear from you this evening, but hopefully soon. And any announcements? I don't have any. Does anyone else have any? Yeah. Just something to bring to the planning and zoning. At our health and safety meeting last night, one of the things that came up was the president of the fire association stood up and said that any time that we're facing new development, whether it's a subdivision or it's industrial buildings or commercial buildings, whatever the case may be, one of the things that they were requesting was just an opportunity for the fire departments to be made aware so that they can plan for what's coming in based on water supply and what they need to do to be able to prepare for that. So I just want to make sure that it'd be all right if Alan brings to us something coming up that we can, that y'all wouldn't mind me as the health and safety chair to reach out to whatever fire department would be responsible for that area for them to be able to come and sit in and just for their being made aware. Okay. Thank you, Tim. Any other? Yeah. Well, I just procedurally, I didn't offer this on this last resolution, but I would appreciate it if the resolutions could be distributed at the same time the agendas are emailed rather than just, here's a four-page resolution to be studied tonight and voted on. The moratorium I agree with, but it also, okay, none of us really sat here and studied it from the time we discussed it. Sometimes it may not be possible what it is. I'd like to ask if that's the standard procedure. We will do better. To be honest, all that's my fault. I'm trying to put this together and go out in the field, and I've got currently right now about 30 minutes a day. Yeah, I understand. So that's, I'll do better. If we can't get it to you a week ahead of time, then we won't break it up. Okay. The code resolution was a little bit rushed just simply because of what we're up against with the state farm officer's office. Yeah. So. No, Alan, we appreciate all you're doing. Oh, it's just a job. I wasn't making excuses. It's just. No. No, I mean, we're. I'm too old. I don't get around this fast. You are playing catch up to some things that didn't happen prior. A little bit. We're getting there, though. Yeah. Okay. I'm seeing a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second.