General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Mike Cortese, relative to Resolution No. RS2026-2189.

Colleagues,

I will not be able to attend the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee meeting on Monday. I only have one resolution (RS2026-2189) up for review, and I am comfortable with it running on consent. I did, however, want to provide some context in the event the Chair or any committee members have questions.

I recently attended a graduation for high school students entering our MC3 pre-apprenticeship program and came away with a concern that I believe deserves our attention.

As my colleagues know, MC3 creates a strong pathway into well-paying careers in the skilled trades. But many of these young graduates are expected to provide their own transportation to job sites, which can change from day to day and are often difficult to reach without a vehicle. For students coming from families with limited resources, that can become a barrier to opportunity before their careers even begin.

I approached WeGo to see what options might be available to help close that gap. Their team suggested adding MC3 participants to the Journey Pass Program and has been incredibly receptive to the idea. They are also open to exploring adjustments to the first-mile/last-mile service provided through Uber so it can better align with job sites throughout Davidson County. The WeGo team shares our goal of making sure transportation is never the reason one of these young people misses out on a life-changing opportunity.

We have also begun discussions with the Choose How You Move team in the Mayor’s Office, and they have been very receptive as well.

This resolution is intended to put the Council’s support for MC3, and for expanding the Journey Pass Program to help these students get to work, clearly on the record. We have invested in creating a pathway to good-paying careers. We should do everything reasonably within our power to make sure transportation is not the barrier that keeps a young person from walking through that door.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Sheri Weiner, pertaining to the Municipal Auditorium Commission Election set for Tuesday.

I am writing to ask for your support of Ron Deal, Jr. for appointment to the Municipal Auditorium Commission.

Ron’s background is exceptionally well aligned with the work of the Commission. His career brings together many of the disciplines directly relevant to the stewardship and operation of a major public venue: architecture, construction and facility management, budgeting, venue operations, public safety, law and urban planning.

He is a registered architect and currently serves as Architect and Design Manager for the Tennessee Department of Military, overseeing capital projects, budgets, construction, code compliance and long-term facility needs.

Most directly relevant, Ron previously served as Senior Director of Facility Operations for Nashville SC, where he was responsible for facility management, operations and budgeting at the 30,000-seat GEODIS Park, including its use for soccer, concerts and private events. He also coordinated construction and commissioning and helped identify operational improvements and cost savings.

His experience also includes construction and facility management for the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, construction law, urban planning, and extensive sports and special-event safety and emergency management training.

Ron understands how a public venue is designed, built, operated, maintained, budgeted and kept safe. I believe that combination of experience would make him a tremendous asset to the Municipal Auditorium Commission.

I hope you will join me in supporting his appointment.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sheri

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Courtney Johnston, relative to tourist development zones as described in RS2026-2135 and BL2026-1493. The topic links to a multi-page article that explains TDZs and the related legislation in further detail.

Major financial proposals can involve dozens of legal documents, bond agreements and technical terms. This article is intended to explain the proposal in plain English — not to persuade, but to explain exactly what the TDZ is and what changes Metro is discussing enacting given the State’s authority to do so.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Tasha Ellis, relative to BL2026-1520, legislation relative to the definition of "boarding house" within the Metropolitan Zoning Code.

BL2026-1520 quietly strikes the clause "who are in need of shared lodging and personal services, supervision, or rehabilitative services" from Nashville's definition of "boarding house" (17.04.060). That clause is what tied the term to supportive/recovery housing. Removing it turns "boarding house" into a plain physical-use category: any temporary, shared-room accommodation, need or no need.

Before this reaches second reading, I'd like the sponsor and Planning staff to answer three questions publicly: (1) What prompted this specific deletion — a Fair Housing Act compliance concern, or a broader push to open up room-by-room rental uses? (2) Does this change anything in the Title 17.16 use table governing which zoning districts permit boarding houses, or does it only touch the definition? (3) Is this being coordinated with the pending changes to our unrelated-occupant cap? 

I'm asking because co-living operators that convert single-family homes into 5-8 bedroom room-by-room rentals — PadSplit already operates in Nashville — depend on exactly this kind of definitional flexibility nationally. District 29 has already seen what concentrated investor ownership of single-family housing does to a neighborhood. I want to know whether this bill is unrelated cleanup or a first domino.

This discussion topic was request by Council Member Russ Bradford, relative to BL2026-1430 and the proposed amendment, regarding the budget book.

Colleagues,

Over my time on Council, I’ve noticed an inconsistency with how we receive the materials needed to understand the Budget. Looking at this year, Council did not get department budget materials until that afternoon at the start of that hearing, leaving no time to review numbers or prepare questions beforehand or even understand what was in it. This is inefficient, and I believe we should look at making this process better so that we can improve the service we give to the taxpayers.

This bill as amended seeks to fix that by requiring the Mayor to deliver each department's budget materials at least 3 days before that department's hearing, instead of one big packet delivered all at once, sometimes weeks later.

Materials must include:

• Budget summary
• Organizational structure
• Recommended budget modifications
• Financial details

"Department" means any department, board, commission, or agency of Metro government.

Subsection B (the Capital Improvements Budget) is unchanged — still delivered by May 20 with an index, as current law already requires.

The Amendment

Conversations with the Mayor's staff explained the difficulty of getting complete operating budget materials delivered to Council by the May 1 deadline. To that end, they sent me the language for the amendment that changed the date from May 1 to May 10, and the 3-day-prior delivery requirement for each department's materials ahead of that department's hearing. It also included a provision that would limit it to four departmental hearings per day. For context, the May 10 start date was based on when Council budget hearings began in past years.

Still Being Worked Out

Two pieces of the amendment came up in Budget & Finance Committee this week:

• May 10 start date for hearings — Again, this was set to allow property time for Mayor’s staff to prepare and provide materials and was based on historical start dates. However, I’m open to removing this or amending to state a certain period of time following the filing of the budget.
• Four hearings per day limit — Mayor’s staff informed me that the intent was to limit the first couple of days of hearings to avoid overwhelming staff who would be preparing the information and not to limit the number of hearings across the entire process. Historically, no more than four hearings have ever been scheduled in a day over the last three years. One thought would be to make sure larger departments would be scheduled later in the first week or on the second since that material would take more time to prepare and focus on the smaller departments in the opening days. I’m open to rewording this in a way that still allows proper prep time for staff and doesn't tie the Budget Chair's hands in future years.

Why It Matters

Better-timed information means Council Members can actually prepare, instead of reviewing a department's numbers for the first time while sitting in the hearing. This is a process fix that would allow us to be better stewards of our constituents’ money.

I want to flag two items on July 21^st 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.

From CM Evans:

This week, the Metro Council will consider BL2026-1452, legislation I filed in response to Metro Internal Audit’s review of Nashville’s opioid settlement funds.

The audit found that the funds are supporting allowable treatment and harm-reduction efforts, but it also raised concerns about oversight, transparency, financial controls, payroll documentation, and whether Metro is consistently measuring program results.  You can read the full audit here: https://bit.ly/OpioidSettlementAudit

Among the findings:

• Metro has no formal body providing ongoing oversight of opioid settlement spending.
• The Board of Health [the charter-mandated oversight of the Metro Health Department] met 45 times during the audit period, but opioid settlement activities were mentioned only once.
• Auditors identified weaknesses in invoice review, grant reporting, financial reporting, and payroll documentation.
• About $1.5 million, or 51% of the spending reviewed, went toward payroll.

BL2026-1452 would establish a formal Opioid Settlement Steering Committee (like other counties have established) and require clearer funding plans, measurable outcomes, quarterly financial reports, public hearings, a transparency dashboard, and a follow-up audit.

On Tuesday, I plan to begin the conversation in the Public Health and Safety Committee and then defer the bill for at least one meeting. That will give councilmembers, the administration, service providers, people with lived experience, and other stakeholders time to review the proposal and offer feedback.  On Wednesday I will be meeting with the Health Department to discuss this further.

These funds exist because of the devastating impact of the opioid crisis. These funds don’t belong to the Health Department.  MPHD was simply designated to be the financial stewards of the funds under the Cooper administration.

If you’d like to see an example of what I believe we should be striving for, check out what Maury County created:  https://www.maurycounty-tn.gov/645/Maury-County-Opioid-Abatement-Committee

We owe it to the public to make sure funds are spent transparently and responsibly and have an impact on residents experiencing the damaging effects of substance use disorder.

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.