General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Ginny Welsch regarding the proposed Planning Commission appointment of Jessica Farr.

From CM Welsch:

Colleagues-

On the agenda for our April 7 meeting is the vote to reappoint Jessica Farr to the Planning Commission. I am asking that you vote against her reappointment. I believe that Ms. Farr has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of council in the rezoning process and as such, should not continue to serve as a commissioner.

As you may remember, last year I had two pieces of legislation to upzone a large swath of my district, a rezoning and a companion UDO. Both went in front of the Commission on April 24, 2025, and that meeting is linked here. My legislation was disapproved by the Commission, not on its merits, which were not discussed at all, but on Ms. Farr’s objection to my process in bringing the legislation forward.

It is Farr’s contention that the Planning Department must be involved in rezones like mine and I did not involve Planning enough. This was despite the fact that I met with Planning several times, and a modified version of my legislation was approved by the Planning staff. And that I specially asked the Commission for approval of the modified version if they did not want to do approve my legislation as submitted.

Under the charter, zoning is 100% within the purview of the Metro Council. Per Metro, the Planning Department “provides design guidance, reviews zoning and subdivision applications, and shapes public policy related to growth, preservation, and development. The Planning Department also provides recommendations to the Planning Commission.”

The Planning Department recommended a modified version of my legislation be approved by the Commission, and that was circumvented by Ms. Farr based on her personal beliefs. She even asked a Planning representative to detail how Planning has been involved in other large upzones. But neither I nor anyone on this council must do things the way other council members have done them in the past. The entire exercise was a farce.

I for one am tired of individuals treating the council as an afterthought and not acknowledging the inherent power our position bestows. We are not there to rubberstamp, nor are we there to beg permission. And it is time that we demand this stop.

As you see in this clip, Ms. Farr clearly states she supports what I’m trying to do, agrees that her mentor Cathy Dodd of the Woodbine Community Organization would have supported my efforts, but because she disagreed with my process, she wouldn’t support the legislation. Ms. Farr showed she lacks a full understanding of the proper role of council in managing district zoning. And for that reason, I ask that you vote no on her reappointment to the Planning Commission.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Courtney Johnston regarding Ordinance No. BL2026-1294, relative to a proposed Metro Water Services bill credit.

From CM Johnston:

When residents were told to drip their faucets during the recent freeze, many did exactly what they were asked to do. If that guidance led to higher water bills for some households, then relief should be targeted to those residents—not diluted into a universal credit for customers who never experienced the problem.

When 74% of customers didn’t see higher bills, an across-the-board credit isn’t relief—it’s a political gesture that weakens meaningful help for the people who actually need it.

Key Facts:

• 74% of customers did not see higher water usage during the freeze.

• Only 26% experienced increased usage, mostly small increases.

• An across-the-board credit gives relief to everyone, including customers who were not impacted.

• That approach dilutes meaningful relief for residents who actually saw higher bills.

• My substitute ordinance provides targeted relief funded by unused ARPA dollars, protecting the financial stability of Metro Water Services.

The Numbers Tell the Story:

Metro Water Services reviewed customer usage during the freeze and compared it to the same time last year.

Here’s what they found:

• 26% of customers saw increased usage

• 74% of customers saw no increase

For those who did see increases, most were relatively small:

• 1 CCF increase – 48% (1971 customers)

• 2 CCF increase – 21% (876 customers)

• 3 CCF increase – 12% (513 customers)

• 4 CCF increase – 7% (310 customers)

• 5 CCF increase – 5% (213 customers)

• 6 CCF increase – 4% (160 customers)

• 7 CCF increase – 2% (99 customers)

A total of 4143 customers were impacted. A VERY SMALL number.

For reference:

• 1 CCF equals about 748 gallons

• Each CCF costs roughly $12.76, increasing by tier.

Any increase above 7 CCF was excluded because usage at that level likely indicates a leak or burst pipe, which Metro Water Services already handles through existing bill adjustment policies.

So the bottom line is simple: 

Nearly three-quarters of customers did not experience the problem this policy is meant to solve.

Why the Across-the-Board Credit Doesn’t Work:

An across-the-board credit sends the same benefit to everyone:

• customers who saw higher bills

• customers whose bills never changed

That means the majority of the credit goes to people who were never affected.

And because the same pool of money is spread across the entire customer base, the residents who actually saw higher bills receive less meaningful relief. A $25.51 credit for water/sewer customers and a $10.07 credit for water only customers is NOT going to go very far for them.

The principle here is simple:

Relief should be targeted to the problem—not spread across people who never had one.

It Also Weakens the Utility’s Financial Model:

Our water system operates as an enterprise fund.

Customers pay for the service they use, and those revenues maintain the infrastructure that delivers that service.

Returning nearly $6,000,000 of system revenue broadly to customers who did not incur higher costs breaks that model.

It also reduces funds available for the things that keep the system running:

• infrastructure maintenance

• treatment operations

• pipes and pumps

• system upgrades

• debt service on capital projects

Policies like this may feel good in the moment, but they can create pressure for future rate increases.

A Better Option Is on the Table:

After reviewing the data and working with MWS, Finance, and Metro Legal, I filed a substitute ordinance that takes a far more responsible approach.

Instead of using restricted utility revenue for a universal credit, the substitute uses unused federal ARPA funds that must be spent before June 30.

Because those funds are not subject to the same utility restrictions, they allow us to provide targeted relief.

Under the substitute:

• $180,000 in unused ARPA Funds would go to the Metro Action Commission, which already administers assistance programs. This amount was calculated from data given by MWS on numbers of customers and how much they were impacted by CCF, with an added buffer. Yes - the number is quite a bit less than $6 Million, which is a statement in and of itself on the unnecessary nature of this across-the-board credit.

• Relief would go to customers who experienced increases greater than 1 CCF and up to 7 CCF.

• Customers with leaks or burst pipes would continue using the existing Metro Water adjustment process.

• The relief amount would equal the actual increase calculated by Metro Water Services.

This approach:

• helps the people who actually incurred higher bills

• protects Metro Water Services revenues

• uses federal funds that must be spent anyway

• preserves the financial integrity of the water system

The Bottom Line:

This issue isn’t about whether we should help residents who saw higher water bills. We absolutely should.

The real question is whether we do it in a way that actually helps them.

A universal credit spreads relief broadly to customers who didn’t incur higher costs while weakening the assistance available to those who did.

The targeted approach I have proposed directs relief where it is needed while protecting the financial stability of our water system and using federal funds that must be spent anyway.

I expect that the administration will have at least two people ready to raise procedural objections to this late filed substitute to prevent it from being discussed on the floor, which would unfortunately limit the Council’s opportunity to debate a targeted solution that both helps affected residents in a meaningful way and protects the financial stability of our water system.

If that occurs, I will ask colleagues to vote NO on the ordinance on third reading. Subsequently I will file this substitute as a new resolution that provides meaningful relief without compromising the long-term health of our water system to be heard the first meeting in April.

Metro Water Services does not ultimately answer to the Mayor on utility governance matters. The Council serves as the Water Board, and it is our responsibility to oversee the financial health of this system.

As the Water Board, our responsibility is not simply to approve the easiest political response in the moment, but to make decisions that provide meaningful relief while protecting the long-term stability of the system our residents depend on.

UPDATE:

In the absence of a NO vote, at the very least, this legislation should be deferred. I just learned today, despite having multiple meetings with MWS leadership over the past several weeks, that the data given and the calculations of the across-the-board credit were based on a sample size of roughly 7.55% of residential customers. Yes – 7.55%. Why? At the time this legislation was filed, that’s all that had been billed. So, 26% of that 7.55% (or 1.96%) saw an increase that looks like this:

• 1 CCF increase – 48% (1971 customers)

• 2 CCF increase – 21% (876 customers)

• 3 CCF increase – 12% (513 customers)

• 4 CCF increase – 7% (310 customers)

• 5 CCF increase – 5% (213 customers)

• 6 CCF increase – 4% (160 customers)

• 7 CCF increase – 2% (99 customers)

A total of 4143 residential customers in this sample size of 15,660 were impacted. A VERY SMALL number given that MWS has a total of 207,294 residential meters. Yet THIS is what this credit is based on which adds up to an almost $6,000,000 cost to MWS. This legislation is being rushed for no reason as MWS isn’t even prepared to give this credit logistically. I’ve asked for new numbers now that all customers should have been billed at this time but am told they cannot get this to me today as it’s a large amount of data.

I still believe the targeted relief is the best path forward to provide meaningful relief while protecting the financial health of MWS. An across-the-board credit is fiscally irresponsible.

PS – Keep in mind that both MAC and United Way both already have significant funds to help residents impacted by Winter Storm Fern and any effort by metro is complimentary and in addition to that support.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Sheri Weiner regarding responses from the Boring Company.

From CM Weiner:

Colleagues,

I received responses from the Boring Company to questions that I submitted to them in December and February. A link to those answers is here. I wanted to make these answers public since several Council Members asked me to distribute them.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Zulfat Suara in response to a CouncilConnect post regarding reforms to the budget process and Metro Nashville Public Schools.

From CM Suara:

CM Webb. Thank you for raising these ideas. I fully support efforts that promote transparency and accountability in our public institutions. At the same time, it is important that our discussions are grounded in a clear understanding of what oversight mechanisms already exist, what authority the Council has under state law, and where there is room for improvement.

To provide clarity, I have organized my response into three sections:

1. Oversight measures that already exist
2. Actions the Council cannot take under current law
3. Opportunities for additional oversight and engagement

1. Oversight Measures Already in Place

Annual Audits

MNPS already undergoes an annual independent audit as part of the Metro Government audit conducted by Crosslin, which is submitted to the State Comptroller. Metro Internal Audit has also conducted program audits of MNPS in the past. If there are specific areas of concern, any Councilmember may request a targeted audit through Metro Internal Audit.

Monthly and Quarterly Financial Reporting

MNPS provides monthly financial reports to the Council. These are distributed by Maria Caulder, and the most recent report was sent on January 7. Like Metro’s own financials, these reports often lag by a few months because they rely on state data.

Public Access to Budget Information

MNPS publishes its operating and capital budgets online at:

https://www.mnps.org/departments/budgets

2. Actions the Council Cannot Take

Attaching Conditions to Budget Approval

State law limits our ability to condition or reduce MNPS funding. Tennessee’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement (T.C.A. § 49‑3‑314) mandates that local governments fund schools at least at the prior year’s level. This prevents the Council from reducing or conditioning MNPS funding based on performance metrics or other criteria.

Because the state has reduced its share of funding over time, Metro has had to increase its contribution to maintain compliance. I discuss this in more detail on my blog, which includes analyses of MNPS budgets over the past five years: https://zulfatsuara.com/blog/

Mandating Council Votes on MNPS Expenditures:

The authority to approve MNPS expenditures rests with the MNPS Board, not the Council. We cannot require votes on spending above certain thresholds.

3. Opportunities for Additional Oversight

Reestablishing Regular Committee Engagement

Metro previously had an Education Committee, which I chaired. During that time, we held regular meetings with MNPS leadership to review expenditures and discuss budget variances. Although the committee is now part of Budget & Finance, it would be reasonable to schedule quarterly MNPS budget discussions—either with the full committee or a working subgroup.

A real-time spending dashboard is a reasonable idea. Metro Finance recently implemented one, and MNPS could consider adopting a similar tool.

Information Requests: 

Councilmembers may request information from MNPS at any time, and MNPS has historically been responsive.

Community Engagement: Residents 

Can attend MNPS Board meetings and communicate directly with their elected school board representatives.

Additional Context

MNPS student performance has improved in recent years, and I encourage reviewing their achievement data. Many of the challenges MNPS faces stem from state-level decisions, including the voucher program and the state’s funding formula. Currently, the state funds MNPS at a 25/75 ratio—Metro pays 75% while the state pays 25%. In contrast, the state funds some other districts at a 75/25 ratio.

Conclusion

While I appreciate the call for increased transparency, the creation of a new oversight committee is neither necessary nor permissible under current law. Much of what you propose already exists, and where improvements are possible, we can pursue them within the authority granted to the Council.

If deeper involvement in school governance is the goal, the most direct path is through service on the MNPS Board.

I am happy to provide additional information or discuss any of these points further. My blog includes several years of budget analysis that may be helpful for understanding both MNPS and Metro’s broader financial structure.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Jennifer Webb regarding reforms to the budget process and Metro Nashville Public Schools.

From CM Webb:

I want to create oversight of the public school system. (I know there are state laws involved here.)

I want to establish a committee with council members, independent auditors, and community reps to review school expenditures.

Regular audit reports - require annual independent audits to the council before budget system (auditor chosen by committee).

Council can investigate any expenditure exceeding thresholds and request justification from MNPS.

Why can’t we do a charter amendment?

Ideas:

***I am advocating a state level for city councils more oversight on their budgets.

***I want a DETAILED by line financials submitted to council monthly.

***I think we need to attach conditions to budget approval

• Student performance metrics
• Facility standards
• Staff to student ratio

***Require council approval before capital funds are allocated

***Require dashboard for MNPS to track spending by department in real time

***Council should pass resolution requiring MNPS to submit quarterly expenditure reports

***Mandate a vote for expenditures over a certain amount.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Tasha Ellis regarding a proposed resolution relative to NES oversight and public notice .

From CM Ellis:

RESOLUTION SUMMARY

Sponsor: Council Member Tasha Ellis (District 29)

Subject: A Resolution calling for Council oversight of Nashville Electric Service's response to the January 2026 ice storm

Summary: This resolution requests a Special Meeting of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee within fourteen days to conduct an oversight hearing on NES's storm response. The resolution requests that NES President and CEO Teresa Broyles-Aplin, Chief Operations Officer Brent Baker, and the Chair of the Electric Power Board appear before the Committee to provide testimony regarding:

• Pre-storm staffing levels and emergency preparedness planning
• Mutual aid request timeline and decisions regarding contractor assistance
• Communication failures including the delayed outage tracking tool and inability to provide restoration timelines
• Restoration prioritization methodology, including treatment of Critical Care Referral Program customers
• The decision not to dedicate crews to single-customer outages and simple reconnects

The resolution further requests that NES commission and fund an independent third-party after-action review to be completed within ninety days, establishes quarterly reporting requirements to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and requests an immediate written report on current outage status, Critical Care customers affected, and mutual aid crew disposition.

Emergency Basis: More than 51,000 NES customers remain without power seven days after the storm, with dangerous cold forecast for this weekend and no restoration timelines provided.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Quin Evans Segall regarding a special called meeting of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.

From CM Evans Segall:

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Emily Benedict regarding the reappointment of Campbell West to the Metropolitan Arts Commission.

From CM Benedict:

The Mayor’s office has nominated Campbell West to be reappointed to the Arts Commission. Ms. West is a District 7 resident, and has been very involved in the community, especially Nashville’s art community. 

Ms. West is the current Chair of the Commission, as confirmed unanimously by her fellow Commissioners. She is the longest serving member of the Arts Commission. She has institutional knowledge that the new members have found beneficial, all of whom have been on the Commission for less than two years. While we have, importantly, changed the structure and membership of this Commission, having someone on the Commission who helped create the needed change has been to artists’ benefit, especially smaller art organizations and artists directly. 

We are receiving emails of opposition to her reappointment. For that reason, I wanted to share information with you that I have gathered from Arts Commission Interim Director Ashley Bachelder, as well as my own take on her work. The points raised in those form emails fall under a couple of categories: 1) either patently false or misleading, and 2) decisions made by the entire Commission, not made solely by Ms. West.

I encourage you to watch her interview with the Rules Committee from the December 16 meeting which you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/live/AR-oRHBKkgQ?si=vrqp34dTnfwd_fxK&t=2194

On to the content of the emails of opposition we have received:

1. She is the last defunder from August 2023 on the Arts Commission; Patently false. This has been discussed at length and resolved in the 2.5 years since 2023, but of note, Campbell West was not even present at the August 2023 meeting.
2. She seconded Tim Jester’s motion in April 2024 to fire Daniel Singh while he was on FMLA; Misleading. As we know, seconding is a matter of procedure for deliberating. All of us frequently second a motion for discussion, and then vote against the agenda item. However, I do not believe this motion was even voted on at that meeting; but discussing personnel issues is not appropriate nor relevant to this reappointment.

3. She supported the removal of an equity worker in June 2024, resulting in a department without a leader and no grants coming out on time in FY25; Misleading. HR decisions are made by the entire Commission. Ms. West was not Chair during the period of extended delays where no grant related activities occurred from March to November 2024. Further, when she became Chair in November 2024, things began happening and steps were taken that resulted in the grant process moving again. 

4. She believed Metro Legal and Metro Finance’s definitions that “Thrive is illegal,” and so approved mandatory fiscal sponsorship, despite public outcry and 108 artists signing against the policy in December 2024; Misleading. This was a unanimous Commission decision. It has been approved twice now, and twice by the Council.
5. She denied local artists’ appeals for the debacle that was FY25; Patently false. Grants were approved by full Commission. The operational breakdown and delays of the FY25 cycle have been discussed at length and no single Commissioner is responsible for them.  

6. She allowed massive changes to Thrive ONLY (not to General Operating) in summer 2025, ignoring community feedback; Patently false. All fiscal work was unanimously approved by Commission twice, and also approved by Council twice.

7. She supported defunding 73 eligible Thrive artists in order to fund art monopolies; Patently false. The Commission (including Chair West) has allocated the highest percentage of the total grant budget to the Thrive program for two cycles in a row, and they are funding 86 Thrive projects this cycle.

8. She is complicit in obscuring meetings that affect the community, with the sudden stop of live broadcasts and accurate meeting agendas; Patently false. The Commission meetings are broadcast and recorded. Metro ITS and MNN discontinued streaming of committee meetings months ago for all departments’ committee meetings. The Arts Commission did not request this change, and Ms. West clearly had no part in MNN’s systemwide change.

9. She supported the dissolution of CARE (Committee on Anti-Racism and Equity) against public outcry; Misleading. This was a unanimous Commission decision.

10. She has not been able to increase Metro Arts’ funding budget in two fiscal years due to inequitable practices. Misleading. Funding is not a function of the Chair of the Commission, but rather the function of the Council’s budget ordinance, therefore this is not relevant and not attributable to a Commissioner.

One other item mentioned is that a complaint has been filed against Metro Arts. In the December MHRC Commission meeting, Director Tucker stated that they received an inquiry from the Arts Equity group, and went on to tell the Commissioners there is nothing for them to review, also noting that “95% of complaints are not actually complaints.” I’d encourage you to engage with Director Tucker for any questions regarding this.

Sometimes appointments to Boards and Commissions are met with opposition. Sometimes that is clearer than others. I hope this information provides clarity to her service and reasons for reappointment consideration.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Sheri Weiner regarding The Boring Company's response to RS2025-1712.

From CM Weiner:

Colleagues, 

Please see here an email string between David Buss, The Boring Company CEO, and me.  This is the entire string – read from the bottom up:

1. his email to Council
2. my email reply to him
3. his response to me

I’d like to share these emails, as I think it will be helpful as we wrap our heads around the potential impact of their tunnel(s).  As I converse with him, I intend to ask him (and I know I’m not the first to ask) to come to Nashville and engage us face to face answering these questions (but I also want them in writing).

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Ginny Welsch regarding BL2025-1006, regarding height restrictions.

From CM Welsch: