General Forum, 2023-2027 Term

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Sheri Weiner regarding Ordinance No. BL2024-469. 

From CM Weiner:

I appreciate CM Preptit for bringing to our attention the need for protections against hate groups.

I would hope that no one objects to the basic premise of the proposed ordinance that any Metro employee’s participation in hate groups and/or paramilitary gangs has zero place in our society anytime, anyplace and for any reason and that such engagement is considered discriminatory and unfair to the constituents of Davidson County.

We do our best to present legislation that is comprehensive and  doesn’t require future band-aids to fix things we didn’t address.  Think how many times we had to go back and fix STR legislation and now are dealing with some tweaks to Public Comment rules thanks to CM Suara.  

That said, I have a slew of questions about CM Preptit’s bill:

1. What happens if, in the age of Artificial Intelligence, someone decides to create an alternate website, social media profile, and/or posts or reports videos that depict anyone of us in this room or, for that matter any of our metro employees, board and commission members in a way that is not true…setting anyone of them up for false accusation?  We have not yet addressed the impact and/or management of AI in either proposed ordinance.
2. What happens if this occurs before a procedure is in place for managing those bad actors who have really violated the scope of either of these proposed ordinances?  
3. What’s the remedy in the event that a violation occurred?
4. Why do we need to move this forward now and, instead, take the time to work collaboratively on a deeper dive so we don’t do this wrong or incomplete?

To that end, I think a two-meeting deferral of BL2024-469 is appropriate so that we and Metro legal can focus on the questions being asked and make sure we have a product that addresses the issue without going too far afield and running counter to state or federal laws.  I would hate to build something that ensnares the innocent while not comprehensively managing the bad actors in a meaningful way.  

Thanks, y’all.

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Kyonzte Toombs. 

From CM Toombs:

During the group's last meeting, we discussed creating questions for departments, so that those departments could explain how they spent salary savings.  Well, until we get more data from Finance, we really don't know how much money was spent so that we can ask pointed questions, and we don't know of which departments we want to ask questions.  So, I think we should wait until our next meeting on the 18th, get the data from Finance, discuss it, and then create our list of departments along with questions.  Thoughts?

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Joy Styles. 

From CM Styles:

The Arts, Parks, Libraries and Entertainment Committee had General Services Director Gerald Smith present their needs on September 3^rd and he will be completing his presentation on the 17th. He was asked to bring a deferred fleet maintenance list of all department needs that fall under General Services, but he has informed us that our fleet vehicle maintenance program needs to be properly assessed. He shared that he performed this same work in his previous job and it cost between $600-700k to have a third party pull the data together and it was completed in over nine months. 

Director Smith also shared that many of the vehicles that we have heard about being out of commission, are not the result of sudden breakdowns, but rather a failure to complete regular maintenance in a timely manner. Once the vehicles are outside of the needed maintenance window, they often become beyond repair and new vehicles are needed. There is a platform that he would like to purchase called Telematics that would alert staff to needed maintenance for the whole fleet. via computer. This would cut back on having so many inoperable vehicles at one time. 

He is also asking to upgrade the sound and voting system at Howard School.

Be on the lookout for these capital requests. Thank you!

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Quin Evans Segall. 

From CM Evans Segall:

We have a few policy updates coming out of T&P that I’m getting questions about. I’ll be posting those here. Please also let me know if there is anything else related to T&P that would be helpful to post or that anyone wants to discuss!

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Joy Styles. 

From CM Styles:

After a brief hiatus, Pet Policy Working Group has come back together to resume conversations about pet policy and improvements to MACC. In this chat, we will post notes from our conversation on August 26th about the audit performed on MACC and plans to move forward ahead of our next community meeting.  

Documents discussed in this topic can be found at this link: Pet Policy Working Group  

This discussion topic was requested by Council Member Emily Benedict to discuss Ordinance No. BL2024-515. 

From CM Benedict:

Colleagues, this bill would change the zoning table for one- and two-family zoning to be allowed without conditional approval. Importantly, this bill does not change any parcels to two-family zoning if they currently do not allow two-family zoning. In other words, all of the zoning codes that would be updated through this bill already allow two-family zoning. RS zoned parcels would not have been impacted by this bill.

Some context: in 1984, a new designation “RS” zoning was established, which created single-family home zoning only. At the same time, new rules were created for R zoning, which placed conditions on duplexes for newly-subdivided lots. 

The unintended consequence of the 1984 rule is that the Zoning Department has to review every permit for nearly every parcel where an owner seeks to construct a duplex. This review was fairly straightforward in 1984, but the types of development have changed now with much more infill of existing neighborhoods. Because parcels have often been subdivided and reconfigured, duplex eligibility is not as simple as pre-1984 vs. post-1984. It is customary for owners to request a determination letter for every lot before building on it to ensure they are compliant. This letter requires an inordinate amount of staff time and resources, even though nearly all parcels that have permits applied for end up being issued today.

That departmental process is very time-consuming, and often Zoning has to go to the city archives to find a paper copy - if they can - of the plat to make their determination. This is costly and time consuming for a department that is already spread thin. This mainly slows down the permitting timeline, something that the State and the Federal Government have been trying to speed up. This bill would remove the conditional approval to free up staff time and resources. Since 1984, we have developed many new zoning tools that make this rule obsolete. This was the impetus for the filing of the bill. Nothing more.

My original plan with the bill was to have a public hearing at the Planning Commission with then a month deferral so the Planning Department could review the bill to see if there were any unintended consequences, and then the bill would go back to the MPC for consideration. If passed there, then it would have been on the Council agenda two months from now. The goal is to make good legislation that helps our departments while also maintaining the integrity of our zoning code.

In thinking through this bill, I think it’s premature because Planning is already working on a citywide study that hopefully will include this update. The Zoning Administrator was enthusiastic that I wanted to look at this due to the challenge the current zoning provisions present his department. I will work with him prior to taking any legislative action to see what we can do to limit that burden on his team. I’m hopeful at some point we can pass a provision that will streamline our processes while maintaining the integrity of our Community Plan.

Thank you,

Emily Benedict

This discussion topic was requested by Councilmember Joy Styles to discuss Ordinance No. BL2024-441 regarding algae, moss, mildew, lichen, and fungus. 

From CM Styles:

BL2024-441 would add algae on homes to the metro code for property standards. In committee conversation, it was suggested that a minimum for the amount of algae on a home would be beneficial. 

If you have potential suggestions, please share them here. Thank you.

July 30, 2024

Colleagues,

Thank you for taking some time to review my synopsis of RS2024-559 proposed by your Charter Revision Committee and considered by the Charter Revision Commission.  I am very appreciative of the work of the committee members, the depth of discussion, and consideration of options available to us.   I am grateful for the attention to detail of the Charter Revision Commission and its support of our committee’s work.  We are fortunate to have the insight of both attorneys Hannah Zeitlin and Margaret Darby who guided our work.

A brief overview of the Charter Revision process:

• We are permitted to adopt a resolution proposing amendments to the Charter twice during our term in office.  Should this resolution pass, the next opportunity will be in 2026.
• The resolution must include a brief description of each proposed amendment, so its meaning is clearly presented.
• The resolution must include a statement as to the fiscal impact of the proposed amendment.

How did the Committee develop the proposed resolution?

• Proposals were requested in January 2024 from our Metro departments and Councilmembers.
• I have attached a copy of the timeline in order to review and address the proposals presented.
• Once the final proposed amendments were recommended by the committee, the Charter Revision Commission convened to receive and study the proposals with public comment and to make recommendations to the Metropolitan Council concerning the amendments to the Metropolitan Charter.   I have attached a copy of the report of that July 12, 2024 meeting from Clerk Austin Kyle.  Please see the following link to that meeting:  July 12 2024 Charter Commission Meeting.

What was the nature of the general Committee discussions?

• Concerns about incorporating too many amendments on the ballot given the inclusion of the transit referendum.  
• Thoughts that it made sense to put these structural amendments in place during the next referendum when there potentially could be other required amendments in the interest of continuity.
• Preferences that emergent proposals only should be included in this resolution.
• Recommending the reduction in age eligibility would encourage more young people to vote while there were concerns relative to life experience and balancing school/Council life.

What were the actions of the Charter Revision Commission?

• Two proposals were unanimously approved
  1. A proposal to designate an eligible officer within the Finance Department to serve as interim Finance Director in the event of a vacancy.
  2. A proposal to change the age of eligibility to run for Metro Council amending that from the age of 25 to, instead, requiring that they be a qualified voter.
• Two proposals were disapproved
  1. An alternate proposal to designate the metropolitan treasurer as Interim Finance Director
  2. A proposed amendment not to hold Council meetings during the month of September
• One proposal is going to be withdrawn at the request of the department so there was no action taken
  1. A Fire Dept proposal to remove the US citizenship requirement for NFD employees
• A recommendation from the Commission was to adopt an amendment to revise the Charter proposals in a format that is consistent with the requirements of Charter Section 19.02(a).

I look forward to the discussion on the floor August 6 of this resolution.  

Regards,

Sheri Weiner

Charter Revision 2023 to 2027 Timeline for RS2024-559.pdf 

Charter Revision Commission - RS2024-559.pdf

This discussion topic was requested by Council member Jennifer Webb. Please find below the text of questions CM Webb has sent to the Housing Division of the Metro Planning Department related to RS2024-592:

1.    How much ownership can the owner accrue at this time and how is the value set?

2.    What are the co-op fees for this project ?

3.    What is the application process to purchase ?

4.    What are the down payments ? financing ?

5.    Who elects the board ?

6.    These are proprietary leases, so who controls the sell or transfer of the shares when the owner decided to see?

7.    How are the funds from a sell disbursed ? Are there fees for selling or transfer of shares ?

8.    What is all included in the monthly rental ? Can they ever increase ?

I would like to get a copy of the contract the buyer signs and a copy of the bylaws.

I also talked to Tim Ellis and he has asked me to defer so he can meet with company, he had not been notified . 

This is inside the City of Goodlettsville city limits and before I can give my support, they need to be on board!

I also have reservations of keeping this from the current residents, if this is such a good thing, why not tell them ???!!!

This discussion topic was requested by Councilmember Kyonzté Toombs to discuss her proposed amendment to RS2024-559 -- the Charter Amendment Resolution. 

From CM Toombs: 

Colleagues,

I have submitted an amendment to the Charter resolution RS2024-559 to not hold regularly scheduled Council meetings in September.

Council meetings are year-round.  We not only have regularly scheduled Council meetings, but we also have frequent specially called meetings, committee meetings, our own community meetings, neighborhood association meetings, district events, citywide events, and we provide constituent services ranging from mediating between neighbors to helping to house constituents facing eviction. Additionally, despite an awesome Council staff, we are our own administrative support.

Serving as a councilmember is a full-time job with which we balance our family and friends and our actual full time jobs.  We often do this at the expense of our own personal health.  Despite the personal sacrifice, I am certain that all of us, if given a “do over,” would again choose to serve.

Despite our commitment to Nashville, the pace at which we move is not healthy and some type of “rest” is needed.  Every election year, Council is essentially in recess for the month of September due to runoff elections.  A permanent September recess would flow with the normal practice during an election year.  Planning staff and Council staff have been consulted.  The schedule for filling legislation as well as the schedule to review zoning applications would need to be updated.  Neither of these updates would be detrimental to Nashville residents.  Council members would still be available to constituents, and the option to have a specially called meeting would still be available. 

The time needed to prepare for Council and committee meetings, meet short legislative deadlines, prepare amendments, etc. can be spent catching up on email, phone calls, and other constituent services.  The time can be spent focusing on district matters or provide more time to focus on legislative priorities.  The time could be spent attending a child’s school event or catching up on family time.  Council members would have the opportunity to catch their breath and come back refreshed for another year of service.

So that this change benefits current council members, this amendment should be adopted and placed on the ballot.  

Sincerely,

CM Toombs