General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

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.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Zulfat Suara regarding Youth in Local Government Summary and Sign up.

From CM Suara:

Colleagues- Thank you all for helping make YILG 2024 and 2025 a success. As we start the preparation for 2026, I wanted to follow up with all of you. As you may recall, one of the goals for YILG is for us to follow through on the students’ suggestions. Often, we create space for youth to participate but nothing happens after, which in a way could be discouraging for the youth. I did not want YILG to be that. For example, I convened a meeting at McGavock with elected officials, WeGo, NDOT and the mayor’s office of Choice How you Move to discuss the students’ ideas about transportation and sidewalks. This coupled with the efforts and leadership of the district councilmembers have resulted in better sidewalk and a dedicated WeGo line. We also started a conversation about the Clear Backpack idea from Pearl Cohn students. We have a company willing to sponsor the cost of the clear bags, we are still working through with MNPS.

While it may not be practical to implement all of the students’ ideas, my goal is for us to do as much as possible. Doing so will encourage students’ participation and give us ideas on serving our constituents. Many of you indicated you would like to work on these projects during YILG. This conversation is the follow-up. Thanks to my amazing intern Maya El Said- attached are summaries of the students’ ideas from YILG 24 & 25 by school. If you are interested in working with me on any of these ideas, please comment below or reach out to the Council Office to arrange a publicly noticed meeting. We will then create the workgroup. The workgroup, which will also include school board members, will reconvene the students like we did for McGavock, bring in partners, etc.

Thank you all for all that you do for Nashville. It is a pleasure serving with you all!

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Druffel regarding Housing & Infrastructure Study and Recommendations.

From CM Druffel:

As we start looking at improving the needs of our housing market, we must ensure that our infrastructure needs and capacity tracks with the density in the proposed zoning changes. As a reminder we unanimously committed to a resolution in 2024 as follows:

RS#2024-288:  A resolution requesting the Metropolitan Planning Department, Metropolitan Department of Codes and Building Safety, Historic Preservation Offices, Metro Water Services, and Nashville Department of Transportation and Multimodal Infrastructure to conduct necessary technical studies, as determined by the departments, to provide a comprehensive analysis of recommended changes to the Metropolitan Code of Laws that would increase allowable density in Nashville and Davidson County and make recommendations regarding land use policy which incorporates affordable and workforce housing strategies that can be supported by existing and planned infrastructure.”

In order to move forward on the zoning changes, some of the following questions on infrastructure need to be answered:

The Multi- Modal Plans are a critical part of determining new zoning districts. How will new zoning districts be determined this Fall when the Multi-Modal plans are not due till December/January?

Will our current stormwater management plans be sufficient for the increased runoff from added density? The Master Stormwater Plan is not scheduled for completion until 2027. We need to examine comprehensive support and plans to ensure the safety of Nashvillians before moving forward. Flooding and flash flooding are becoming more frequent because of climate change. The memories of the 2010 Nashville flood and the Waverly flood are reminders of the real risks—lives and livelihoods are at stake, with potential economic damage reaching into the billions.

An Environmental Impact Study is essential. How do we know which neighborhoods can safely handle additional water runoff? Nashville, situated in a basin with 350 miles of creeks, streams, and rivers, contains some of the region’s most sensitive soils. As an example, the 2010 flood resulted in 560 landslides across the county. How does the Metro Nashville-Davidson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan address the impact of increased density?

Our city’s tree canopy is one of our best defenses against stormwater runoff and air pollution. What impact will greater density have on our urban forest?

These critical infrastructure questions must be thoroughly and thoughtfully addressed before we proceed. Let’s ensure we take the time needed to make informed and safe decisions for Nashville’s future.

Sources:

*Metro Nashville-Davidson County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan;

* https://wpln.org/post/landslides-are-a-growing -threat-in-Nashville-blame-climate-change-and-

developers. By Caroline Eggers, Environmental Reporter

*USGS geologist, Franci Ashland

*The Growing Threat of Urban Flooding on Communities, Joshua Brownfield, Mary 8, 2025

Increased Building and population growth means more people and property are at risk . . CBO

report “Climate Change, Disaster Risk, and Homeowner’s Insurance

( https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59918 )

Why Flash Floods in the US have been extreme in 2025, EarthSky.org , republished from The

Conversation, July 24, 2025.