General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

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:

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Tasha Ellis regarding a request for information from MTA and a requested deferral for Resolution No. RS2025-1663.

From CM Ellis:

I am requesting a deferral of RS2025-1663, which appropriates $8 million to the Metropolitan Transit Authority for the purchase of replacement buses, bus chassis, and paratransit vehicles.

I want to be clear: I am not opposed to ensuring MTA has the vehicles it needs to serve our community. However, I believe this appropriation presents an opportunity for the Council to exercise thoughtful oversight given the significant changes underway at our transit authority.

Why I'm requesting this deferral:

With the passage of the Choose How You Move referendum, MTA is entering a new chapter. For the first time, our transit system has dedicated funding. This fundamentally changes how MTA should be planning, budgeting, and operating.

Before we continue moving money under the old model, I believe it's prudent to pause and ask some basic questions:

• What is the current state of MTA's fleet, and what is their replacement strategy?
• How are Choose How You Move revenues being integrated into capital planning?
• Does this $8 million request align with a comprehensive plan, or is it a one-off ask?

What I'm requesting from MTA:

Before this resolution moves forward, I am asking MTA to provide the Council with the following information:

1. A current fleet inventory and condition assessment, including the age, mileage, and maintenance status of all revenue vehicles
2. A detailed fleet replacement schedule and procurement plan for Fiscal Years 2025 through 2030
3. An accounting of all revenues received or anticipated from the Choose How You Move program and how such revenues are being integrated into capital and operating budgets
4. An explanation of how this requested appropriation aligns with the transit authority's updated capital plan in light of dedicated transit funding now available

If this information is not provided in a timely manner, I intend to file a resolution requesting the Metropolitan Auditor conduct a financial and operational audit of MTA.

This is about good governance, not obstruction.

We are about to enter a new era of transit investment in Nashville. Council should have a clear picture of where MTA stands before we continue appropriating funds piecemeal. This deferral gives MTA the opportunity to demonstrate transparency and alignment with the new funding reality.

I welcome input from colleagues. If you have additional questions you believe should be included in this request, or relevant context I should consider, please reach out.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Joy Styles regarding Resolution No. RS2025-1655, relative to the Department of Emergency Communications.

From CM Styles:

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Jacob Kupin regarding Resolution No. RS2025-1659, relative to a proposed Downtown Public Safety Grant and MOU.

From CM Kupin:

1. When was this first discussed and who have been involved in these conversations?
2. Is this the application for the grant or the acceptance of funds?
3. Will the spending of funds allocated to Metro be subject to council approval?
4. What if any oversight does the council have over the money granted to the BID (and NDP)?
5. Without this MOU, will NDP still get these funds? Or is the MOU a requirement of the state grant?

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Burkley Allen regarding the 2025 City Summit Conference at National League of Cities.

From CM Allen:

Colleagues attending the 2025 NLC City Summit Conference, this discussion topic is a place where everyone can share what they've learned for future reference and for those who couldn't attend. All topics, links and resources are welcome!

Documents discussed in this topic can be found at this link: National League of Cities 2025.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Jeff Preptit regarding the judicial election to the Davidson County General Sessions Court Division VI.

From CM Preptit:

Dear Colleagues,

Of the many duties we have as Councilmembers, selecting a candidate to fill a General Sessions Judicial vacancy is, in my opinion, one of the most consequential functions this body undertakes. The Judges that make up our General Sessions Courts are critical public servants who are to be conscientious stewards of our local judiciary and uphold the highest standards of judicial practice.

At a time when our institutions and democratic system have been under consistent attack, the candidate appointed to the bench will have the solemn duty to ensure faith in our institutions and safeguard the rights of every individual who appears in their courtroom.

The calling to public service is one with which each of us are intimately familiar, and I am truly grateful to each candidate for putting their name forward for consideration to serve this city for which we all deeply care. Each candidate has demonstrated their willingness to participate in the America experiment of forming a more perfect union through service, and each candidate should be commended for their willingness to serve.

However, the task now falls upon us to select the candidate we believe embodies not only the values of a sound and prudent judiciary, but who is also best qualified to be a steward of this institution. As each of you have done, I have examined each candidate with great interest and rigor. After weeks of careful consideration, I believe that Jodie Bell is the candidate best situated to ensure a sound and responsible judiciary that serves every Nashvillian.

Throughout her legal career, Jodie Bell has demonstrated a robust commitment to substantive justice, the protection of the rights of some of the most vulnerable in our city, and has consistently worked to ensure that our judicial system is responsive to the needs of those who find themselves in the halls of justice. As part of her 27 years of legal experience, Jodie Bell has consistently worked to enhance the practice of law and the level of service provided by the legal community. She helped to pioneer the creation of the IDEA program that sought to raise the standards for indigent defense, led numerous continuing legal education courses, and has upheld one of the highest standards of legal practice at both the state and federal levels. Jodie Bell is an accomplished attorney who brings excellence and experience to the bench.

Therefore, I am proud to support Jodie Bell for General Session Judge Division VI.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Courtney Johnston regarding NDOT fee increases in Ordinance No. BL2025-1063.

From CM Johnston:

Colleagues,

I wanted to share with you some of the work I’ve been doing and research I’ve done around the fee increases proposed by NDOT.  My concerns are related to lack of engagement with our service providers and development community as well as potentially setting metro up for yet another lawsuit.

First, I’ll say the work that’s been done around the Event related fees and sidewalk cafés has been productive and I think we’re in good shape there.  

My concerns are with, specifically, Excavation permits, Sidewalk Right of Way Obstruction permits and Temporary Street closure permits – 6 in total when you account for the high and non-high impact categories of the three.

Second, we must know and understand that all fees are passed on to the consumer.  In the case of utilities, it’s the rate payers.  We all should also know that we cannot charge more in a fee than the expenses related to that fee – it must be revenue neutral and not a revenue stream.  Metro has been on the losing side of multiple lawsuits related to that in recent past – let’s not repeat it. 

That said, the goal of these fee increases, as told to us, is “cost recovery”.  So, I scratch my head at the work done to see what other cities are doing.  If we are trying to recover OUR costs, why does it matter what any other city is charging?  It doesn’t.

In the Budget and Finance Committee meeting on November 3, 2025, I asked Director Alarcon if current outside contractor fees were used to calculate the “Total Cost” that we are attempting to recover.  We were told no – that the “Total Cost” was calculated assuming all inspections were brought in house.  This is false. 

If you look at the fee study on pages 51-53, “Outside Consulting Inspectors” under “External Costs” are used in the calculations of the six fees I mentioned before.  Those contractor fee rates account for $7,984,025 according to their rates multiplied by the number of each permit pulled per annum which is also stated in each analysis.  That’s quite a bit of money since it’s listed as $95.04 per hour with multiple hours associated with each permit applied to a whopping 38,325 permits if you combine each of the three types.  Pulling this service in house is obviously a good idea from a fiscal responsibility perspective and I support it.  However, we must be careful.

If you refer to the FY2026 Budget Modification spreadsheet, page 55 of 73, you’ll see where NDOT requests 10 FTE for “Right of Way Inspection”.  The purpose stated is for “Additional personnel to monitor the increased demand for permits driven by growth in development, construction and telecommunications installation currently handled by contractors. Utilizing in-house staff would significantly reduce expenses while maintaining A consistent level of service.”  The fiscal note attached is $1,238,900 for the 10 employees.  That cost - $1,238,900 for in house inspectors – is significantly lower than the $7,984,025 for contracted inspectors.  That’s great!  Except two things:  1) not all these permits are associated with projects that are actually being inspected.  So, that nearly $8M price tag is less.  Additionally, we are basing these fee increases on the inflated cost with outside consulting rates built in which are supposed to be greatly reduced – down to $1,238,900.  So, we will quickly begin to bring in more revenue with these fees than the actual costs associated with the permits.  And that’s when we’ll get sued.  Again.  And we’ll lose.  Again.

My other concern around these fee increases is for essential utilities – water, electric and gas.  An increase in fee is an increase in cost which will more assuredly be passed on the ratepayers.  All of them.  This is not something I think we want to see when we’re constantly talking about affordability.   Additionally, I’m told, most of these types of permits pulled by our essential utilities are not inspected at all.  So, I’m wondering if there is a way to create a permit category within each type that has an inspection required (or not) designation with a difference in cost so that they aren’t paying for something they aren’t getting.  That would help bring those costs down.  That’s a question for legal I’ve asked.

My last concern, now, is around lack of engagement.  This process started off months ago with a letter to the council listing multiple stakeholders that had been engaged with and were supportive.  This was false, called out, and the administration withdrew.  It hasn’t gotten much better since then.  Many conversations have been had but lots of questions and data remain unanswered and not provided.  Worse, just earlier this week, I reached out to Piedmont Gas as well as AT&T.  Neither of these major service providers to our county were aware, at all, of this legislation.  They reached out to others in their space – same thing.  No one had a clue.

I received several calls that the administration let them know that they were going to defer this legislation to the January meeting.  I have an amendment that pulls out the six permits listed above and would allow the others around Events and sidewalk cafés, etc. to move forward since those seem to be good.  NDOT and the Mayor’s office can decide how best they want to proceed – either deferring the whole thing or bifurcating to allow the uncontested fee increases to move forward.  But quite a bit of work needs to be done on the six fees to make sure all stakeholders are engaged meaningfully to make sure there are not unintended consequences and to make sure the fee calculations are precise so that we don’t hurl ourselves into a lawsuit.   

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Joy Styles regarding legislation involving the Nashville Office of Entertainment.

From CM Styles:

Tonight's meeting about the Nashville Entertainment Commission has been cancelled due to the administration legislation filed to transfer funding to the Commission.

I will keep everyone abreast of the situation and the hiring process moving forward. Hopefully, the Commission will be able to resume hiring an executive director with no impediment, now that the legislation has been submitted.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Jennifer Gamble regarding Ordinance Nos BL2025-1005, BL2025-1006, and BL2025-1007.

From CM Gamble:

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, BL2025- 1005, 1006, and 1007, are scheduled for public hearing at tonight’s meeting. This legislation represents the second of four phases of recommendations expected from the Housing and Infrastructure study requested by Metro Council.

For months now, the Planning Department and many council members have held public meetings to educate the community about the proposed legislation and listen to residents’ concerns. Tonight, is an important opportunity for us to gather additional critical feedback from residents that will help inform updates needed to the proposed bills.

Therefore, I intend to hold public hearings for BL2025- 1005 and 1007. Furthermore, I intend to move approval of both ordinances on second reading with a deferral of third reading to the December 4 meeting. Note, that I will move for approval of the Substitute Ordinance for BL2025-1007 which incorporates changes based on community feedback already received including prohibiting owner-occupied Short Term Rental Property (STRP) within a new DADU in RS single family zoning.

In addition, I will request that Chair Horton add the bills and proposed amendments to the November 17 Planning & Zoning Committee agenda for discussion purposes only. There are already several good amendments proposed for the legislation, and I look forward to discussing them and other proposed amendments in committee. Advancing these proposals tonight does not signify final adoption - it simply moves the bills forward, granting the Planning and Zoning Committee the authority to update them with any necessary changes that come from further community feedback.

In addition, I intend to defer the public hearing for BL2025-1006, to the December 4th meeting to allow time for the Council to receive the Planning Commission recommendation. The PC deferred this proposed bill at its last meeting for further review.

I believe these bills are a good first step toward addressing the housing crisis in Nashville through a data driven approach which establishes building standards for a diversity of housing types for residents at different stages of life and income levels. I look forward to continuing discussions with the community about the proposed legislation as they move through the Council evaluation process.