You need to be signed in to add your comment.

You cannot leave comment in this blogpost unless you are a part of the project panel.

RS2026-2135 and BL2026-1493: Music City Center refinancing

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Tasha Ellis, relative to RS2026-2135 and BL2026-1493, legislation regarding refinancing with the Music City Center.


Colleagues, 


I want to flag two items on July 21st agenda that I think deserve more attention than their placement suggests: RS2026-2135, the Music City Center refinancing resolution, and BL2026-1493, its companion tax ordinance.

Because the ordinance lands on first reading, it advances to second reading automatically under our current rules — no debate, no committee discussion at this stage. That's exactly why it's easy to miss, and why I'm raising it now. These two items are more consequential than a routine refinancing. Together they:

  • Refinance the 2010 convention center bonds — a real credit benefit, worth doing — while authorizing an uncapped expansion bond program with no dollar ceiling stated anywhere in the documents;


  • Extend our hotel, contract-vehicle, and rental-vehicle taxes from fixed sunset dates to "whenever the expansion debt is paid" — a multi-decade extension, given the 2058 bond maturity;


  • Move $300 million in Convention Center Authority surplus to the East Bank, under the structure created by Public Chapter 1079;


  • Rewrite six sections of the Metro Code to conform to PC 1079 — including a blanket clause (Section 9) amending any other section "necessary to comply," by reference.


As I understand it, the resolution will be deferred out of this evening's committee meetings so it can track with the ordinance on second reading. That deferral gives us window for a deep-dive and to get answers before they appear on the next agenda. I'm sending the following questions to the Finance Department in writing ahead of second reading:

  1. What is the total expected par amount of the expansion bonds? "Such additional bonds as may be issued" is not a number.


  2. This ordinance conforms us to definitions in TCA 7-89-112(n)(1), (3), and (4) as amended by PC 1079 — language not yet in the published code. What do those buckets authorize, and does the $300M transfer live inside them?


  3. Once we approve this framework, does any future expansion issuance return to this body, or is this our only vote?


  4. What does Section 9 actually amend? I won't change our own code by blanket reference to a state statute without knowing which sections.


  5. The agreement commits tourism revenue to public safety only "to the maximum extent permitted by the 2026 Act" — can we make this less vague. If we can state the East Bank transfer precisely at $300 million, why can't we state the public-safety commitment? Is it guaranteed, or discretionary to the state-appointed board now overseeing these funds?


Much of this originates in state legislation the General Assembly passed this spring. That's precisely why it warrants our scrutiny. I'll share Finance's responses with the body once I have them, so we all walk into second reading with the same information. I welcome any insights from our second termers and/or feedback from the finance hawks.