General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Zulfat Suara in response to a CouncilConnect post regarding BL2026-1436 approving the pencil lease.

From CM Suara:

Colleagues, thank you for this robust and thoughtful conversation, and thank you Councilmember Johnston for the detailed analysis. Transparency and oversight are essential, and I appreciate the seriousness of the concerns raised. However, there is important context missing from the discussion that I believe is necessary for making an informed decision.

First, PENCIL is not simply a “worthy organization.” Its sole mission is to support MNPS. Every dollar it raises, every program it operates, and every resource it provides is directed exclusively to Metro Nashville Public Schools. This is not a nonprofit with a broad or unrelated mission — it exists for MNPS and MNPS alone. That distinction matters when evaluating this lease. Here is a link to PENCIL’s website- for the organization mission which is also included in their annual form 990

Second, focusing only on the rent Metro will not collect is misleading. For every $350,000 in annual rent, MNPS receives roughly $3 million in direct support from PENCIL. Historically, PENCIL was able to provide this level of investment because a private entity donated the building they occupied. If PENCIL loses access to a facility, that $3 million in annual support disappears. In that context, the lease is not a loss — it is a net positive for MNPS and for taxpayers. PENCIL is providing funding and services that Metro would otherwise need to provide at a much higher cost. You can find this information also in PENCIL’s annual form 990

Third, the Lillard building has been vacant for years. PENCIL is rehabilitating a deteriorating public asset and putting it back into productive use for the benefit of our schools and our children. It is common for donors or mission‑aligned partners to request long‑term leases when they are investing significant capital into public property. This arrangement is consistent with that practice.

Fourth, long‑term leases are not unusual for Metro. In the last six months, this body approved a 99‑year lease with TPAC — a 35‑year initial term with two renewals totaling 95 years. The Fallon lease for East Bank development is also 99 years. While those are land leases rather than building leases, the principle is the same: when an entity invests substantial resources into public property, long‑term stability is required. Metro’s own property standards allow leases up to 50 years, and leases longer than five years are not prohibited. Here is a copy of the TPAC lease agreement - https://nashville.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=14988772&GUID=D714C3C4-D54C-4533-A802-214C3D4882F6 and here is Metro property standards- https://www.nashville.gov/sites/default/files/2026-06/Public-Property-Administration.pdf

Fifth, there is accountability built into this lease — even if it does not run through the Council. MNPS retains the authority to decline any renewal. Section 3, Article 5 of the lease makes this explicit: if PENCIL requests an extension, MNPS has a 90‑day window to exercise its right to terminate the lease at the end of the current term. In other words, renewals are not automatic. MNPS must affirmatively choose to continue the relationship, and if MNPS elects to terminate, it must compensate PENCIL only for the fair market value of capital repairs not already credited. This structure ensures MNPS maintains control and oversight throughout the life of the agreement. - Link to contract- https://nashville.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15569479&GUID=3CB56BA4-4880-4ACF-AA32-213FFFDF1BFD

My support for this agreement is rooted entirely in PENCIL’s mission. This is not an ordinary lessee. PENCIL exists to support MNPS, and supporting PENCIL directly supports our schools. That context should be part of our evaluation.

I am not opposed to an annual report to council/MNPS so that councilmembers will not have to go through their website to look at the company's annual report to see how much they raised and spent in support of MNPS

This is not anti‑transparency. It is an acknowledgment that the agreement provides meaningful value to Metro and MNPS. I am comfortable with the lease term based on the benefits to our schools, the precedent of other long‑term leases, the accountability mechanisms within the agreement, and the fact that PENCIL’s work directly replaces costs Metro would otherwise bear.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Johnston, relative to the proposed lease between Metro Nashville Public Schools and the PENCIL Foundation.

From CM Johnston:

This is not about whether PENCIL does good work.  PENCIL Foundation supports Metro Nashville Public Schools by helping provide supplies, resources, volunteers, and support for teachers and students. That mission is worthwhile.  But good intentions do not exempt a public agreement from scrutiny.

Council is being asked to approve a lease between MNPS and PENCIL for approximately 35,733 square feet of the former Lillard Elementary School, along with a portion of the surrounding grounds. On the surface, this has been presented as a market-rate lease with PENCIL also making roughly $5 million in capital improvements.

But the actual structure deserves a much closer look.

The lease begins at $324,302 per year, increasing annually by 3%. Over the first 10-year term, that is roughly $3.7 million in potential rent. If all three 10-year renewal options are exercised, this agreement could run for up to 40 years, with a nominal rent value exceeding $24 million, without having to come back before this legislative body.

Yet under the lease, and what I believe many people are missing, PENCIL may apply credits against up to 100% of the rental rate.  Those credits may include goods, services, school supplies, volunteer hours, fiscal sponsorships, and capital improvements — including design, engineering, architectural, and other soft costs.  That means the public may be told this is a market-rate lease, while the actual cash rent paid could be little to nothing.

That is not a small detail. That is the deal.

The rental-credit structure is broad, difficult to evaluate, and fraught with risk. Who determines the value of the goods and services? How are volunteer hours documented? Are paid employee hours excluded? What prevents ordinary nonprofit operations from being reclassified as activities resulting in rent payment credits? What documentation will Council and the public receive?

These are not hostile questions. They are basic financial oversight questions.

The capital improvement issue is just as important. PENCIL’s planned improvements have been presented as an additional public benefit. But if those same improvements are credited back against rent, then the public may not be receiving both rent and improvements. We may be receiving improvements in place of rent.

At the same time, MNPS remains responsible for capital repairs, grounds maintenance, refuse collection, and utilities — costs that are often borne by a tenant in a more typical lease arrangement.

So the real question is not whether PENCIL is a worthy organization. The question is whether this agreement is transparent, financially sound, and fair to taxpayers.

The length of the lease makes this even more concerning. A 10-year lease is significant. A potential 40-year structure is extraordinary. This agreement could control a public school asset for decades, long after most current elected officials are gone.

Council routinely debates much smaller expenditures with more scrutiny. We question grants, contracts, capital spending, and one-time appropriations. But here, we are being asked to approve what could function as a decades-long, zero-dollar lease of public school property with broad rent credits and limited future legislative oversight.

That should give every Councilmember pause.

Again, this is not anti-PENCIL. It is pro-accountability.

If Metro wants to financially support PENCIL, we can have that conversation openly. If MNPS wants to provide subsidized space because of the value PENCIL provides to schools, then make that case plainly.

But do not present this as a straightforward market-rate lease if the agreement allows the rent to be wiped out through credits. Do not present capital improvements as an added benefit if those improvements are also used to reduce rent. And do not set a precedent that any nonprofit with a good mission can receive long-term control of public property while offsetting rent through self-reported goods, services, and improvements.

Before approving this lease, Council should require real safeguards.

1. Require annual public reporting of all rent credits. MNPS and PENCIL should report the stated rent, cash rent actually paid, every credit claimed, the category of each credit, the value assigned, and the documentation supporting that value.

2. Limit and clearly define eligible credits. Volunteer hours should exclude paid employee work and ordinary nonprofit operations. Capital improvement credits should require prior approval, independent valuation, and a clear cap.

3. Require Council approval before each renewal term. Before any 10-year renewal takes effect, MNPS should return to Council with a full accounting of rent paid, credits claimed, improvements made, public benefit delivered, and remaining public obligations.

These amendments would not stop PENCIL from serving schools. They would not prevent MNPS from partnering with a nonprofit. They would simply ensure that public property is not committed for decades under a structure that lacks transparency and sets a terrible precedent.

PENCIL is a worthy partner.

But a worthy partner does not automatically make this a good deal.

Public property belongs to the public. Council should not approve a lease this long, this favorable, and this vulnerable to abuse without full transparency, enforceable safeguards, and real legislative oversight.

That is not anti-PENCIL.  That is pro-taxpayer.  That is our job.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Styles regarding Nashville Entertainment Commission legislation.

From CM Styles:

1. After much contention last term, the commission was finally created and commissioners were appointed in August of 2023. The legislation stated clearly that while housed in the Mayor's Office, the commission would hire the director. The previous Mayor AND Metro Legal were good with this. 

   
   

2. 2025 - In January, after HR had closed the application window on the Executive Director position (with a record 122 applicants), the Mayor decided the commission should not have hiring power and filed legislation (without the commission's knowledge) that he would become the decision maker for hiring. Suddenly, Metro Legal claimed that it wasn't possible to house it in the Mayor's Office without being under his control. Convenient. No one ever communicated with those applicants what happened. There was no follow-up.

   
   

   New legislation was agreed to between myself and the administration that the commission would work with HR and select the candidates and send over their choices to the Mayor. He would then interview them and make the formal announcement. 

   
   

3. 2026 - A new hiring process was finally completed and two candidates made the final cut to be the executive director. These two candidates were sent over to the Mayor in February. He interviewed both of them. They were not notified until after the Mayor's budget was published that he had removed all of the funding from the office. One of the candidates has already dropped out due to this political nonsense. The other candidate very much wants this position and is ready to go. 

This post was requested by CM Sheri Weiner regarding the substitute sponsored by CM Toombs to BL2026-1355 concerning the Metropolitan Council Office. The substitute referenced below is linked here.

Colleagues,

I support this ordinance because it does something very important at a very critical time—it brings clarity, structure, and stability to the Metropolitan Council Office.

At its core, this is not about personalities or politics. It is about ensuring that the legislative branch can function as it was intended—independent, well-supported, and governed by clear lines of authority.

I want to offer a perspective from outside of government for just a moment. In my professional work as a business consultant over the past 20-plus years, I have worked with organizations facing very similar challenges—where roles are unclear and lines of authority are blurred.   In every case, the organizations that stabilize and succeed are the ones that clearly define responsibilities, separate governance from operations, and remove interference that creates confusion and inefficiency.  That is exactly what this substitute does.

It reinforces a proper division of duties. It makes clear that operational oversight of the Council Office rests with the Director, and that the office is accountable to the Council as a body—not subject to the direction of any one elected official outside of what is authorized by Charter and Code.  And I want to be very clear—this is not a new concept. This is how the system was designed to work. Right now, we are in a moment where ambiguity has created tension and an escalating situation that is not serving this body, our staff, or the public. This ordinance provides a reset. It creates clarity where there has been confusion and establishes boundaries that allow everyone to operate in their proper role.

That matters—for our staff, who deserve consistency and protection.
It matters for this Council, so we can function effectively and collaboratively.
 And it matters for the public, who expect this legislative body focused on governing—not internal conflict.

This is a step toward diffusing a situation that will only continue to escalate if we do nothing. It offers offering a path forward grounded in structure, accountability, and respect for the institution.

We are not picking sides and are reinforcing the framework that allows this body to do its work—by design.   Amendments may arise as the work of the Executive Committee moves forward and that’s ok.  I would encourage my colleagues to support this substitute without deferral so we can move forward—together—with clarity, stability, focus and a sense of peace.

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.