The announcement period in five four, three, two.

Good evening, everyone.

Today is December the fourth.

I want to start by acknowledging that this meeting is being held on the unceded stolen land of the Cherokee, Shawnee, and Yuchi people, and to remind you that no one is illegal on stolen land built by stolen labor.

Before we open up the announcements, I want to take a personal privilege, a moment of personal privilege, and to honor the life and legacy of a friend of mine, Colorado State Senator Faith Winter, who passed away tragically on the night before Thanksgiving.

She was both a colleague and a friend.

And as a former local elected official, she was dedicated to training and empowering local and state elected officials across the country.

She was a joy to be around, and she will be missed deeply.

Do we have any council members that would like to be recognized for announcements?

Councilmember Hurrell, you are recognized.

Good evening.

Thank you, Pro Tem.

Um, so the Equity Alliance will be feeding the block this evening, um, starting at 6 p.m.

to 7 30 p.m.

at Hamilton United Methodist Church, and the address is 3105 Hamilton Church Road.

Um, of course, while uh full last, but please feel free to come in community um at Hot Meals, bring your family, bring friends, let a uh neighbor know.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Harell.

Council Member Taylor, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Pro Tim.

I just want to uh recognize the brothers of Alpha File Fraternity Incorporated uh for 119 years of manly deeds and service to all mankind.

A5 oh six.

Congratulations, Councilmember.

I thought it felt cold in here today.

Councilmember Vell, you're recognized.

Thank you so much, Pro Tim.

Um, just want to let everyone know that I am having my final town hall of 2025 this Saturday, December 6th, from 430 to 530 p.m.

at 469 Chestnut Street.

Um, I am supporting the creative arts in our um district, and this will be right before the Wedford Houston Art Crawl.

So everyone is invited.

It's a year in meet and greet.

There'll be some nice treats.

Um, and then there is a giving opportunity.

Uh, we're doing a toy drive with Love Thy Neighbor.

So if anyone wants to bring a new unwrapped toy for kids uh age uh zero to 17, you are welcome, not required.

Um, and there's so many community uh neighborhood holiday events that I want to make sure that people know about.

Um, Chestnut Hill will be having the their um neighborhood meeting on Tuesday, um December 9th um at 630 at Cafe Babu.

Um, and then right before then, um, the Edgehill Village Neighborhood Association is having their holiday lights party um on the same day, Tuesday, uh December 9th from 530 to 730 at um the music row bar and grill.

Everyone is welcome to that.

Um, and then uh to round out the air next Tuesday.

Everything's next Tuesday, uh, December 9th, it's Asia uh Asian Pacific Islander Music Heritage Night Um at the Preds, and everyone is welcome to join.

Um there'll be lots of uh performances from the API community, and uh we look forward to celebrating them this year.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Greg, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Pro Tem.

I would like to invite everyone out to the Donaldson Hermitage Christmas parade this Saturday at 4 p.m.

It travels along Donaldson Pike, starts on the south side and runs north to Lebanon Pike.

So put on your festive attire.

Looks like we're gonna have any rain for Saturday and come out.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I will go ahead and give a few announcements and we'll uh leave it open for a few moments to see if any other council members come in with announcements.

Uh Councilmember Harrell so graciously announced uh the Equity Alliance's feed the block event.

I also wanted to remind people that uh at UFF, they also have uh canned goods available as well as uh clothing and coats for anyone that is in need.

Um, this is also a great community building event.

We have fun playing Uno and doing other things, so please try to come out.

Uh, also wanted to acknowledge that the Equity Alliance is also having um a feed the block event every Wednesday.

So the one in Antioch is every Thursday, every Wednesday.

It is located at 613 East Street.

Um, that's the one in Clarksville, Tennessee.

My apologies.

Um, the one in Nashville in North Nashville is on Wednesdays at 1018, 16th Avenue North.

Uh, for anyone who's interested in attending that.

Um, and council member Greg did acknowledge the Donaldson uh parade.

Uh there will also be holidays in the View, which is the Bellevue Parade Saturday, December the 6th at 10 a.m.

It starts at Bellevue Middle School.

Um, for council members, the point of contact for that parade is uh Council Members Wiener in Spain.

Uh the Antioch Pike Parade will be Sunday, December the 7th at 3 30 p.m.

It starts at McCombs Avenue, a few blocks off of Nolansville Pike.

Um, for any council members attending, the point of contact will be myself or council member Vaux.

And there is the Christmas and Jolton parade Saturday, December 13th at 4 p.m.

at White's Creek Pike between First Baptist Church and Gifford Place.

And for council members, the point of contact is Councilmember Webb and Councilmember Kimbrough.

Um, also wanted to thank all the council members who were able to volunteer with the store.

Um, that volunteer opportunity was organized by Councilmember Vowe, uh, as well as the um volunteers who came to the second harvest food bank and the branch uh organized by myself.

So thank you to the council members, vice mayor, council member staff, and the families of council members who were able to volunteer.

We will have a volunteer opportunity for December.

So colleagues look out for an email with that information.

Councilmember Ewing, do you have an announcement?

Oh, okay.

You were smiling.

You look like you had an announcement.

So we will.

Oh, that's awesome.

I am planning to, I'm planning a volunteer opportunity each month for the council while I'm pro tim.

So that we'll have an opportunity.

We give back in a lot of ways, but that's another way to get back.

Um, I will leave the the announcement period open for a few more moments in the event that any other council members come in and would like to make an announcement.

But y'all don't have to sit in silence.

Y'all can feel free to congregate amongst yourselves.

And for any council members who just joined us, this is the announcement period.

So if you have any announcements, feel free to let me know, and you will be recognized and while we are waiting.

They are actively growing their volunteer base.

So for anyone who is interested in volunteering, you can go to Senior Ride Nashville.org slash volunteer for more information.

And we're going to do the last call for any additional announcements.

If there are any colleagues who have an announcement, council member Wiener, you are recognized.

If you are bored and have nothing else to do, if you want a good parade, Saturday, December 6th.

Saturday, December 6th, 9:30 until probably 11:30.

We have a parade in Bellevue, and it's going to go down highway 70 to Sawyer Brown.

We've got music, we've got people, and we've got candy we're gonna throw out.

So we look forward to seeing everybody there.

Thanks.

Council Member Wiener.

Last call, any other council members like to be recognized for announcements.

Will the meeting please come to order?

We do now have a quorum.

Today is Tuesday, December the 4th, 2025.

This is the twenty-second meeting of twenty twenty-five, and the fifty-first regular meeting of the current term of the Metropolitan Council of Nashville and Davidson County.

Will all members of the council as well as the public please rise for the invocation and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

The invocation is being offered this evening by the Reverend Davy Tucker, pastor of Beach Creek Baptist Church and executive director of the Metro Human Relations Commission.

Reverend Tucker is the guest of District uh six, Councilmember Clay Capp.

Uh, go ahead.

Six.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to do this.

Um, Clay and uh Councilwoman Toombs are the only two people I've ever acquiesced to do this.

May we, the people of Nashville always be reminded that you council members are not perfect.

May we, the people of Nashville always be reminded that you need our support and encouragement.

May we, the people of Nashville always be reminded that we must be the change we want to see in the world.

May you, council members always be reminded of the shoulders on which you stand, many of whom have gone the way of man.

Who understand often better than you the importance of this moment.

In addition to hot chocolate and cookies, the celebration will feature music from the choirs of JT Moore Middle and Gateway Elementary Schools, as well as Nashville in harmony.

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or the winter solstice, as we head into the darkest season of the year, many cultures have ceremonies that bring light into the darkness, and the warm glow of trees and candles, familiar and cherished music can be a comfort in dark times.

And the warm glow of trees and candles, familiar and cherished music can be a comfort in dark times.

And we do find ourselves descending into darker times in many ways, not just because the sun is setting at 4 30.

So we do want to make sure that everyone in Nashville knows that there are resources and support from our city, your local government, and our nonprofit partners, whether for food, shelter, physical or mental health, or personal safety, you can be in touch with your council member, the Office of Family Safety, or simply call 211.

This is a season of giving and service and metro departments in the council continue to be out in the community, and we look forward to joining neighborhoods and organizations all over the county this December.

All right.

Without objection, we will suspend the calling of the roll and ask the clerk to please record the names of the members present throughout the meeting.

Is there a motion for approval of the minutes of the meeting of November 18th, 2025?

Okay, um, there is a motion properly seconded without objection.

And seeing no one seeking to be recognized for a change to the minutes.

The minutes of the meeting of November and November 18th are approved.

Okay.

Mr.

Clerk, are there any messages from the mayor?

There are no messages from the mayor.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

All right.

Now we're moving right into our agenda.

Section E elections.

Uh normally when we have more than one candidate for this, uh members will see uh their voting tablets uh loaded.

Uh but uh as we do just have uh one um nominee this evening, uh we will be taking this voice by vote.

The first item is E1 regarding the Transportation Licensing Commission.

Um this is the consideration of a nominee to fill one vacancy on the commission for a term expiring on October 20th, 2027, with an election to be conducted at the December 4th, 2025 council meeting.

We are here.

All right.

Um uh we will just move uh to a voice vote uh for this.

Um don't believe, nope, we we've got our um uh report in already, Margaret, or we need to ask for a report from Chair Cash on the election matter.

Okay, Chair Cash, could you um give us a report?

I'm sorry, sir.

I should have asked for that first.

Go ahead.

Oh good.

Um, so on the uh nomination of Carrie Rogers for the Transportation Licensing Commission term to expire on August, I mean on October 20th, 2027.

Uh, we voted four in favor, zero against zero not voting.

Okay, all right.

So with that committee report in um now uh we will move uh to a voice uh vote.

Uh all in favor of uh the election um to serve on the transportation and licensing commission of Carrie Rogers.

Please say aye.

Any voting no?

Any abstaining?

All right.

Council has elected uh Carrie Rogers to serve on the Transportation and Licensing Commission.

Is Mr.

Rogers here this evening?

Okay, we express our thanks uh to him, and then we will uh keep moving uh on uh in our agenda next uh to appointees and nominees.

Uh this uh portion of the agenda shares all persons who are scheduled to appear before the rules confirmations and public elections committee for an interview this evening.

Referrals will be back to the committee by rule as part of the council's two meeting process for elections and confirmations.

No votes will be taken by the body in this section of the agenda other than for deferrals.

So, Chair Cash, your brief report, please, sir.

No vote totals necessary, simply the name of those interviewed and for which seats, please, sir.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Uh Emma Elliott for the contract and compliance board.

Um as through Puffer.

Oh, as well as George Huffman for the contract and compliance board.

Uh oh, yes, I'm sorry.

Yep.

And uh Carrie Adams for Human Relations Commission, John P.

Schrader for Community Review Board.

Um Tanisha Westbrook for the Community Review Board.

Uh for the Equalization Board, Bruce Pierce for the Hospital Authority, Dr.

Courtney Pitts for the Board of Stoning Appeals.

Actually, um We deferred and then withdrew our and then with I think this is a withdrawal for the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Okay.

Um so that is a withdrawal um for uh John Glassmeyer.

Correct?

Yes, okay.

Um that uh appointment will be uh withdrawn.

All right, so um those were the folks again that were uh interviewed.

And so uh moving next, uh Chair Cash into section G of the agenda confirmations.

You're recognized again for your committee report on the appointees in the second step of your committee's two meeting process, uh this time with vote totals and a consolidated motion for the confirmation of those persons, or first for a deferral deferral motion, if any.

Go ahead for bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission for uh Chris Weinman for a term ending March 24th, 2027, and for the Human Relations Commission, uh the appointment of Katie Phil Health Jackson for a term expiring July 22nd, 2028.

Both were five to zero to zero.

Okay, five zero zero.

Okay.

Um and can you give a uh consolidated motion um for uh I I move approval of the nominees.

Okay.

Um uh there's a second.

Um, or does anyone wish to remove an item from this consolidated motion for purposes of an individual abstention or a no vote?

Seeing none, all in favor of uh the appointments of uh Mr.

Wyman and Ms.

Feldhouse Jackson, please say aye.

Okay.

Um uh they have now been confirmed by the council.

Um to our confirmed appointees.

If you chose to return uh to the council chamber this evening, which is not required, do please stand as I call your names.

Uh council has confirmed uh to the bicycle and pedestrian advisory commission.

Uh M.

Chris Wideman.

Please remain standing.

And uh council has confirmed to the Human Relations Commission, uh, Ms.

uh Katie Feldhouse Jackson.

All right.

Um well thank you so much, uh, Mr.

Winman and to Ms.

Jackson.

If you're watching from home, we appreciate you and your willingness to serve our city.

Thank you and congratulations to both.

All right.

Now we're on to Section H, uh public comment.

Members of the public who are Tennessee residents wishing to speak, uh, may sign up uh during po for public comment at a table outside the council chamber from 5 to 6 p.m.

on the day of the council meeting.

Public comment is limited to 20 minutes total at council meetings, and each speaker is allowed up to two minutes to speak.

Persons speaking on agenda items must be prioritized to comply with state law.

All right.

Um our list uh is uh Manon Hall speaking on agenda item 16.

This is resolution 1659 in opposition after Mr.

Hall will be Richard Rose and Nancy Van Reese.

So you're very welcome to please go ahead and stand and come toward the podium.

Uh go ahead, sir.

You are recognized.

Yeah, so hey, um yesterday y'all were handed a fact sheet, and the first line of that stated that the state has already been awarded the national downtown partnership 15 million dollars for downtown public safety.

That was misinformation.

That wasn't true.

Just after the meeting finished, y'all received an email that it contained the grant application, and what did it say?

It said that the grantee, the legal entity name, National District Management Corporation.

Why does that matter?

The DMC is a quasi-governmental body.

Their budget, as we found out this year, is subject to Metro Council's review and approval.

So why is this MOU and this resolution about the National Downtown Partnership?

Why is it with the NDP instead of the district management corporation?

Couldn't the district management corporation require the NDP to use the funds in the way they want them to if they have oversight of NDP's contract?

I'm here to ask for a public hearing.

Surveillance technology was discussed over and over and over again in committee yesterday.

The Metro National Down Police Department requested the surveillance technology be included in exhibit A.

The DMC and the NDP are entities acting on the behalf of the Metro government as seen in the share.

And seen as in the way that y'all filled out the application and said, hey, we're gonna let y'all give the money to us.

Nowhere in the resolution, though, in and in the MOU, does it state what funds or what technology would be transferred to Metro at any point in time?

But it does limit them to choir surveillance technology.

And it was already admitted in the in the meeting yesterday that the NDP could already have surveillance technology on private property.

They can surveil National Your time has concluded.

Thank you.

Please don't uh your time is concluded.

Thank you.

Uh next is uh Richard Rose speaking on agenda item 96.

Uh this is ordinance uh 1005 speaking in support.

Mr.

Rose, you're recognized.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much.

Um in the 1990s, I was homeless, and uh I uh lived in a motel where I could only pay for 28 days at a time, and then I had to spend at least one day out of my motel room.

And uh that created me to be homeless.

I finally got a Section 8 housing certificate and moved into a one-bedroom apartment.

Uh I was able to go back to school, and I graduated uh cum laude with a uh degree in paralegal studies.

The um the fact is that when I moved into that apartment, I became part uh of the community.

Um then uh and participated in that community.

I now live at the Chippington Towers, where I uh participated in a community that's designed for independent living for people uh that are over 65 years old, and for persons with disabilities.

And uh I have been an active member in NOAA, the Nashville organized for access and hope, and I'm an active uh participant in my church, Eastwood Christian Church here in Nashville.

And uh it's very important that we provide that we have housing for people uh that can be part and be part of the community and be active participants.

Uh I I support the uh mid-level housing uh proposal and zoning ordinance uh and uh that we get more uh housing in this area so that uh we can uh thank you for your attention.

Thank you, sir.

Next is the honorable Nancy Van Reese.

Welcome back to the chamber.

Uh speaking on agenda item number 17.

Uh, this is resolution 2025 1660 speaking in opposition.

Go ahead, Ms.

Venries.

Good evening.

First of all, I I want to uh add on an encouragement for you to support the housing bills as substituted and amended in the planning committee last night.

These bills are a critical step towards addressing Nashville's housing crisis.

I wanted to also speak uh to the capital spending plan, which was deferred um in budget and finance uh by rule.

I appreciate the opportunity for continued discussion.

For several years, the vision for a park at Madison Station Boulevard behind the Madison Library has been advancing steadily, and I'm grateful for the chance to highlight its importance.

According to the Metro Parks plan to play, this area has a significant park deficit.

More than 6,000 residents live within a 15-minute walk of the proposed park.

Clear evidence of the need for accessible green space.

The site is also surrounded by strong community assets, including the Madison Library, Amquis Station, 54 Madison, and Harkin Hall, an active hub that a public park would greatly enhance.

Community investment has been substantial.

Nearly $600,000 has already been committed, including support from the Memorial Foundation, the Nashville Parks Foundation, and the Mayor Cooper administration.

Because of this investment, the park is now fully designed with schematics complete and construction ready documents in hand, making it ready for procurement immediately.

Engagement led by this Nash the Civic Design Center has involved 376 residents, four council members, six metro departments, and eight organizations through multiple public events.

This park has been truly co-created with the community.

Given the document documented need, the site's accessibility, the surrounding assets, and the significant investment already made.

Your time has been.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next is uh Gary Gaston, uh, who will be followed by uh Craig Bardo and Trina Hewell.

Uh, Mr.

Gaston is speaking uh regarding housing and zoning in support.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

My name is Gary Gaston.

I'm the CEO of the Civic Design Center, a nonprofit based in Nashville.

That's mission is to advocate for civic design visions and actionable change in communities to improve quality of life for all.

On behalf of the Civic Design Center, I'm here to ask you to please vote yes on the housing bills before you this evening that offer real solutions to create more obtainable housing options while preserving neighborhood character.

At the design center, we have 12 guiding principles that guard our work in Nashville that were created with significant community engagement over 20 years ago through the plan of Nashville process.

Tonight I am here in support of this legislation because one of our principles is to support housing options for diverse incomes and lifestyles that complement neighborhoods.

This principle was reaffirmed recently through Imagine Nashville.

In this citywide community engagement process, residents overwhelmingly express desire for a city grounded in belonging with a deep love for the unique character of our neighborhoods.

Achieving that vision requires us to open our door, not close it to more of our neighbors.

Allowing modest, well-designed homes and dadus in opportunity-rich neighborhoods ensures more people can live near work, school, transit, parks, and the daily amenities that make life easier and more connected.

A broader pallet of housing options will provide more opportunities for new families and essential workers in healthcare, public safety, education, and those in the service industry.

Providing more variety of living options within existing neighborhoods is also an investment in the health of our residents.

It gives Nashvilleans the ability to age in place as they grow older, thus maintaining healthy social connections with friends, family, and neighbors.

We are at a moment that calls for courage and clarity.

The zoning bills before you introduce thoughtful updates to our zoning policies that expand our missing middle options, duplexes, cottage courts, and small unit homes that fit comfortably within the existing neighborhood patterns.

Please vote yes on these bills and strengthen our neighborhoods by welcoming more people into them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Craig Bardo speaking on agenda item 16.

This is resolution 1659, speaking in opposition.

Go ahead, sir.

I'm Craig Bardo with the Party for Socialism and Liberation, the Black Alliance for Peace and Veterans for Peace.

I'm here because this council has chosen to operate as the concierge service for billionaires, clearing the way for their projects, protecting their interests, and turning Nashville into a playground for the wealthy and a police state for the working class.

But I'm not just here to oppose your policies.

I'm also here because it uh there is a political culture shaped by nonprofits and the institutional left that tells those of us fighting for the working class to treat access to you as currency.

Well, that that approach has failed.

It paved the way for black displacement, ICE partnerships, corporate giveaways, rising rents, rising utilities, and now Musk's vanity tunnel no one asked for.

That logic brings us right back to this chamber as this council conjures up surveillance again.

This time a privatized fusel-style network run by an unelected, privately controlled mini-government for downtown's wealthiest owners.

A system with access to police infrastructure, no public oversight, and a record of targeting the unhoused.

That's not public safety.

That's authoritarianism on contract.

Meanwhile, the people who make the city work are priced out, policed, and lied to.

Here's the truth.

Politics reliant on access and clever phrasing weaken movements, weakened movements, domesticate and ultimately betray the working class.

But something in Nashville is shifting.

A real working class movement is forming outside of the control of elite funders and influence peddlers, and it's growing faster than you realize.

And the truth is this you helped create it.

Your anti-working class decisions pushed people into clarity.

And they're organizing with the discipline and a power this city's elites are not prepared for.

You get a vote tonight, but you don't get a vote on what comes next.

You can't surveil your way out of a working class that refuses to be disposable.

Next is uh Trina Huell, uh speaking on agenda item 16.

Uh, after her will be Sabina uh Moyedin.

Um Trina is speaking on resolution 1659, also in opposition.

Go ahead.

Hi, uh, my name's Trina Hewell.

I live in District 6, Clay Cap, my representative.

Um Craig's right.

Y'all are pushing us into uh new movements, and uh I've written a folk song that I can't sing in two minutes, but I will recite the lyrics.

Do you remember when the mayor famously said that the fight against surveillance was essentially dead?

Used to be against.

Now to surveillance he's wed.

Throw your phone in the river, he said.

Who knew when he said I want you to stay?

That he meant away from downtown, okay?

That he'd close the camps and take our benches away, that he'd say what he said just to betray.

Does he think that we won't boycott?

Y'all know we don't play.

Don't forget good trouble got started on John Lewis Way.

If you don't like surveillance, here's the trick that might deliver.

Keep your phone and throw this memorandum in the river.

We're tired of giving cops the world while the people get a sliver.

Why not keep your phone and throw this memorandum in the river?

So choose how you move through this fascist giveaway.

If this state wants us to have this, what more should we have to say?

We are watching closely.

Stand on business today.

If you don't like it, don't throw your phone away.

Use it to canvas, connect, and convey that we're ready for Freddie to get out of our way.

If you don't like surveillance, here's a trick that might deliver.

Keep your phone and throw this memorandum in the river.

Tired of giving cops the world while the people get a sliver.

Why not keep your phone and throw this memorandum in the river?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Sabina Moyedin uh is next.

Speaking on agenda item 16, uh resolution 2025, uh 1659.

Also in opposition.

After Sabina will be Joshua Haston and uh Lindy Drolsom, if you want to go ahead and come forward.

Go ahead, you're recognized.

Good evening, honorable vice mayor and council members.

My name is Sabina Moidin, Executive Director of the American Muslim Advisory Council, and a proud member of NOAA.

I'm here to tell you not to improve to approve them MOU for 15 million security grant between Metro National and the Nashville Downtown Partnership.

I can't help but feel a sense of disappointment and outrage at the current efforts to reintroduce surveillance technology in the guise of security.

And this after community organizations expressed repeatedly during debates on fuses and LPR that ex uh that expanded surveillance does not keep us safe and actually harms our communities.

What is this?

Even as a crime rate in Nashville is going down.

Why would we have a $15 million grant so we can invest in high-tech toys to keep certain communities safe at the expense of the rest of us?

The Trump administration has already tapped into surveillance technology across the country to deport immigrants and target people of color.

Our immigrant community members who work in downtown Nashville, as well as our unhoused neighbors there, would be most at risk.

In this climate, we are talking about expanding surveillance, this surveillance.

This past week, Trump has targeted Afghans and Somalis with the most racist language possible.

Communities already under scrutiny through are already under scrutiny through surveillance.

Additionally, he has targeted his activists.

Nashville should not be a party of this, and I urge you to vote against it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Joshua Haston.

Um speaking on agenda item 96, uh ordinance 1005 in support.

Go ahead, sir.

Everyone, thank you for your time tonight.

I'm also in Clay Cap's district.

Um thanks for all you guys do.

You don't get enough thank yous.

So I know these are hard meetings.

Um I guess I'm here to speak in favor of the zoning bills here tonight.

Um these bills are here to support the backbone of our community.

The people that live here, that work here, that cannot afford to buy a house, that cannot afford to pay the most high rents that have been built the past decade.

72% of Nashville's workforce individually qualifies for affordable housing.

The vast majority of our public servants do not have a salary that would allow them to pay for housing in Nashville.

The vast majority of our service workers do not have a salary that'll allow them to pay to live in Nashville.

The things that make Nashville great, the restaurants, the retail, the communities, they cannot afford to buy houses.

They cannot afford to rent.

These bills allow for the types of housing that would support those types of services that our community needs, the people that you know, the people that you love, the people that voted for you.

These land use policies, it's the same land use policies, the same building typologies that are mentioned in Nashville next.

All those manor houses, townhouse courts, that was voted on, adopted by this council in 2016.

Please vote in support of these zoning bills.

This is gonna help with better buildings, walkability, incremental development.

Stormwater impact feeds will be taken care of because every stormwater permit that is pulled requires a nexus permit or nexus tied to it.

The infrastructure will be built.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Uh next is Lindy Drolson.

Uh, after Lindy will be uh Tamika White, if you want to go ahead and come forward.

Uh Lindy is speaking on agenda item uh 16, resolution 1659 in opposition.

Go ahead.

My name is Lindy, and I'm standing here as a lifelong working class Nashville who has lived through this city's disasters, not from the comfort of an office, but from the ground alongside my neighbors.

I was here during the 2010 flood when my family was stranded with no power and no answers.

I was here after the 2020 tornado, delivering supplies to people who lost everything while the city rushed to bulldoze damaged homes and make way for developers.

I've seen how disaster becomes a business model in Nashville and how our pain becomes someone else's profit.

So when you tell us this new MOU is about public safety, I know better because I've watched what the city actually invests in when working class people are in crisis, and it's not us.

It's surveillance policing and private entities that operate with zero democratic accountability.

This agreement hands enormous power to a downtown mini government run by wealthy property owners.

It lets them plug into MNPD cameras, SWAT feeds, private footage, even systems tied to ice.

This is not public safety.

That is a privatized surveillance network built to protect capital, not people.

And I need you to understand how that feels for someone like me.

Somebody who grew up in the margins of the city, the people who were the last to receive aid after the disasters will now be the first ones watched, tracked, and criminalized by the very same forces that abandon us.

The unhoused will be targeted.

Migrants will be targeted.

Poor and working class black and brown communities will be targeted.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest square mile of the city gets to run its own shadow policing operation without public oversight.

I'm not here tonight because I think this council will suddenly develop a conscience.

I'm here because Nashville is changing, not in the way developers brag about, but in the way they fear.

Something real is forming.

A working class movement that wasn't created in a boardroom or funded by foundations.

A movement built out of tornado relief hubs, food cleanups, picket lines, eviction defenses, and neighbors taking care of each other when the city didn't.

And that movement is paying attention.

It's growing, and it will not be pacified by access, politeness, or the illusion of public input.

You cannot keep legislating against the people who make this city run.

You cannot keep turning trauma into profit and expect quiet compliance.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next is uh Tamika White, uh, speaking on agenda item 86.

This is ordinance one one-one four in support.

Go ahead, ma'am.

Good evening, council members.

My name is Tamika White.

I serve as the political director for SCIU Local 205.

I am here tonight to speak in support of this resolution.

Um, but I'm also here to speak in opposition to an email that you received on November the 18th at 9.58 a.m.

from Dave Rosenberg.

This administration has continued to ignore employees who are being abused by their director.

The previous administration did the same thing.

We are asking that you adopt this resolution and stop allowing employees to suffer under your clock.

Thank you.

I yield the rest of my time.

All right.

Um, given uh the uh yielding of time and the aggregate from uh one other prior shorter public comment.

We have time for one more uh person.

Next on the list is Anton Jackson, um uh speaking regarding housing zoning preservation and support.

Surprise, sir.

Hello.

We have a little time left.

Go ahead.

Well, thank you very much, uh, Madam Vice Mayor.

Good evening, council members.

My name is Anton Jackson.

I'm vice president for rebuilding together Nashville, and also a member of the Alliance for Affordable Nashville.

Tonight you'll vote on these three zoning bills that would create missing middle zoning here in Nashville.

I urge your support, and I want to explain why these bills are essential for keeping Nashville in Nashville.

In 2017, 72% of our zip codes were affordable.

Today, just 21%.

Over 200,000 Nashville are paying more than they can afford for housing.

These zoning bills are among the most cost-effective community-friendly strategies Metro can pursue.

Missing middle housing, duplexes, triplexes, and homes near transit and services helps us meet demand without sprawl, supports our economy by retaining talent, and ensures working families and young professionals can afford to stay here.

But we can't just build our way out of this.

We must also preserve what we have.

Rebuilding together Nashville, I see the other side of this crisis every day.

The homeowners we serve have lived in their homes for over 30 years on average.

Most have paid off their mortgages or pay under a thousand dollars monthly.

These are longtime neighbors who built the Nashville communities we love.

Yet, as housing costs rise, many older adults face impossible choices fix the roof or buy medication.

Repair necessary critical repairs or buy groceries.

When families can't afford critical home repairs, they're forced to leave.

Many move outside Nashville entirely because affordable options don't exist here.

Zoning reform and housing preservation are not separate strategies.

They're complementary solutions to the same crisis.

Thank you for the question.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh that concludes our time for public comment.

Um thank you to everyone who uh came out to speak.

All right.

Uh next on our agenda is Section I Rules of Procedure.

Uh we take these up as we do uh legislation.

Uh item I one um is amendment to the rules of procedure uh regarding uh Rule 29, uh, which concerns uh public hearings for zoning bills.

Uh this is sponsored by Councilmember Spain, Huffman, Coopin, Wiener, Benton, and Ellis.

Uh Mr.

Spain, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

Committee report, please.

Uh for the report of the rules, confirmations and public elections committee, Chair Cash.

We voted to approve four in favor, zero against, and one not voting.

All righty.

Um, uh, it's back to you uh for a motion.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'll move approval with the comment.

Okay.

Um uh go ahead, sir.

Is there a second to hear a second?

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam President.

Colleagues, um this rule change obviously is coming in the context of the larger conversations we're having about um housing and zoning and infrastructure that's been going on for months and will likely continue for months.

Um one of the things, one of the concerns that we have heard from the public regarding some of the bills we'll be discussing later tonight is that um if they I'm sorry, if they accept that I think it is, I'm just not holding it because my bad, sorry.

Uh yeah, right.

So um where was I?

So um one of the concerns that we've heard is that the regular rezoning process doesn't afford the opportunity for folks to provide input and be part of the conversation when their property is proposed for rezoning without their consent, essentially.

So um simply what this rule change does is to try to recognize that concern and hopefully address it to some extent by saying if there's a rule change, excuse me, if there's a large-scale rezone, which is uh defined as more than 25 parcels or 10 acres, to which all the property owners are not part of the application.

So essentially a council member uh initiated rezone or a uh zoning text amendment, so something that has the potential to change the base zoning of someone's property without their consent, then there will be an automatic 60-day deferral to give time for proper consideration and public input.

It doesn't dictate what that process looks like because I know all of us have our own uh preferences for how we engage with our constituents on matters like this.

Uh, it simply gives room for that conversation to happen.

Uh, you may be thinking that in most cases this would happen anyway, and I would say you're absolutely right.

Uh, typically on a rezon of this size, there's gonna be a deferral at some point along the way.

The hope is that this offers some predictability of predictability to the process.

So the public doesn't have to wait till first reading and say, well, is the sponsor gonna defer it?

Is it gonna be a one-meeting deferral, a 30-day deferral, a 90-day deferral?

There will be some assurance that there will be this 60-day deferral to provide input and have these important conversations in the community before the bill moves forward to public hearing on second reading.

Um that's the intent.

And with that, I appreciate your support.

All right, we're on to debate and uh discussion um on this rule proposed rule change.

First in the queue is council member Gadd, you're recognized.

Uh thank you so much, madam speaker.

And um, I do rise in support of the council members' rule change here.

Um, specifically because uh what I hope that folks are listening so intently tonight um as we consider uh different have housing and infrastructure proposals.

Um, this is something at least for the endurance of our term, but hopefully we can also change to ensure for um future uh terms as well that we um ensure that we are taking the time with our um districts as we propose these uh any type of rezoning or um or that we ensure that we're getting the the community input and the community notice that they deserve.

I think a lot of times that, especially as we've gone through the housing infrastructure proposals, this is my first term.

So um what I have learned is a lot about zoning.

I have learned a lot about what it takes to get a rezoning across the finish line and how much it takes to get the education out there, the community input when we actually talk about a rezoning.

And so I think what the sponsor has done is uh for this rule change is to make sure we're probably all doing this anyway, but just to provide some assurance to our constituency of um what we all intend to do already.

Um so to me, this is kind of a no-brainer.

This is something we can we can do, and um I appreciate the sponsor for bringing this rule change.

Even though I think it should be done in something that's a bit more permanent, I think um over the current uh term uh that we have remaining, this is something that's really common sense for us to be able to approve.

So thank you all so much.

Thank you.

Next is Councilmember Coopin, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

I've got a comment, but first a question if I could direct to special counsel Darby.

Um a rule change such as this one um would be subject to a suspension of the rules.

So if this passed um would, and for some reason a rezoning like this had to happen quicker than the 60-day delay, would a suspension of the rules be allowed, or would it be have to be deferred no matter what?

Special council Darby recognized.

Uh a suspension of the rules would be permitted.

Well, you could move one and everyone gets to vote.

Yes.

Um thank you.

And I also rise in support um with that as a caveat that like any other rule, um, this could be suspended if there was some exit exigent circumstance.

Um, but I think that having a kind of stated prescriptive um process and timeline helps members of the public know what's going on and know what to expect.

Um, it's something that most of us are doing already in the amount of time it takes to do a large-scale rezone.

Um, so I'm very supportive of this measure.

I think it's a a great addition.

I appreciate the sponsor bringing it, and I intend to vote for it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next is Councilmember Benedict.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, so I totally understand the intent of this, and um I can absolutely appreciate where this is coming from.

Um, I'm struggling with it though.

And um the this rule change will allow this body to tell a district council member how to manage zoning in their district.

Zoning is one of the biggest parts of a district council member's job.

And I believe this I believe my colleagues know what's happening in their district, and if they want to pass something for zoning, I have people come to me with requests for zoning all the time.

And oftentimes, as I said in committee yesterday, I tell them to kick rocks.

That's not something that I would ever support.

That's not something the neighborhood would support.

We're not gonna proceed with that.

But sometimes people come to me and I say, that's an interesting project.

Let's go talk to the community about it.

And then I go through the legislative process if that's something that I believe the community will support, and also that I believe you will support.

And so when they file that bill, it goes to the planning commission, and the planning commission is determines if it's fits with the um with National Next.

And from there, um, it comes here, and we have a public hearing here.

Um that's that's you know, under my purview.

When I was first elected, we expanded the UZO in District 7 by over a thousand by over 1,100 properties.

It went through in three readings.

The reason why is because I had communication with the public.

That's my job as a district council member.

My job is to get out and talk to them and make sure that whatever I'm putting forth, they support.

There was not one single voice of opposition at the planning commission, none at council, and it went through without a hitch in three readings and it was done.

That's what this work can be.

That's how we can do this work.

I don't think that I think that the rule change, while I know it wasn't this, well, I believe it wasn't the sponsor's um intent.

I believe it takes the power away from a district council member.

Um, and I don't think that that's the right way we should be working with each other and managing each other.

Um, I think we again we have opportunities to um course correct if we don't like what's happening with the public on a bill, and we do that by moving deferrals by having discussion on the floor.

And so with that, um, I'm not going to support this, and I hope that I look forward to hearing more debate on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Benedict.

Uh, next is planning and zoning committee chair Ron Horton, your recognized sir.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I arise in uh support of this rule change.

Um as a as a practical matter, uh, any time there is a large-scale rezoning like this, um, such as was recently done in the nations, uh, a deferral like this is likely to happen in any case.

And if codifying existing practice into rules helps provide some greater community assurance, uh, that they all have the time to be heard and that there'll be sufficient community engagement.

I think that's a step uh in the right direction.

Um additionally, uh what I find it um particularly attractive about this rule change is that the Metro Clerk shall as as soon as possible publicly advertise um the rezoning uh when we went through this large rezoning in the nations, um, despite as much community engagement as we could possibly do, um, less than 100% of people heard about it and and many people heard about it for the first time after they received um notice in the mail or when signs went up.

Um and so this by advertising this early after it's deferred after first reading helps plug that identified and and noticeable gap.

Um, and so helps the community feel engaged, it provides sufficient time for for engagement.

Um so I think this is a significant step in the right direction.

I think in a lot of ways codifies uh existing practice as it as it exists um and practice and strongly in support of this rule change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next uh is Councilmember uh Rutherford, your recognized sir.

Thank you, madam president.

I I rise in support of this rule change.

Uh we we had a a good little discussion uh in rules committee in regards to it, and I know not everyone uh obviously was um uh has heard that.

So something that I wanted to share uh and just from my experience that uh I've handled a number of rezonings uh large and small, and I can't recall one of them that didn't end up with a deferral at some point for some reason.

Sometimes it was a deferral uh that I that I chose specifically, sometimes it was a deferral asked for by the community, sometimes it was a deferral asked for by the developer uh because they needed it for for some reason.

And so uh I think that uh in this case, we especially with property that we're talking about being rezoned, that um is uh not been asked for uh by the property owner specifically.

This is something that certainly favors the property owner to allow more time to make sure that they know what is happening and to make sure that they can do what they need to do, and whether or not they end up supportive uh or against the the um uh deferral.

And so uh, or do the uh rezoning, I should say.

And so uh again, I commend the sponsor uh for bringing this forward, and uh I'm happy to support it, and I hope that you will too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next is Councilmember Bradford, you recognize her.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'm rising in opposition of this tonight, you know, reading through the rule change.

If this was just for countywide legislation, I'd have no problem supporting it.

But as was stated earlier, some aspects of this are stepping on the toes of district council members.

You know, we all have our own processes.

I've never brought anything forward to this floor that didn't already have majority support in the community, so there was no need for any deferrals or any pushback.

And so I can't support something that's attempting to handicap and dictate how district council members do our job.

And so I asked my colleagues to vote this down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Councilmember Sapulvada.

Your recognized man.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I I agree with uh my colleague.

Um I I do appreciate the sponsor um and his attempt um to try and bridge a gap, but e each district is very different.

Um each council member takes a different approach when it comes to rezoning.

Um my district is very small and very dense, and we don't have that many rezonings because it is so built out already.

Um I require um extra steps.

I require um translation services, uh interpretation services.

Um most of us already do deferrals, most of us already take the time to have community meetings.

Um we already have public hearings at planning.

We have a public hearing here.

Um we know that uh those uh community members that were upset with large rezonings are still gonna be upset after the 60 days.

Uh and this rule change will not change that.

Um so there really is no uh getting over that hurdle.

Uh different districts require different processes, and uh different communities require um uh different approaches.

We know that there are some communities that have so much development going on that uh neighborhood associations take on uh the role of helping the council member uh hold those meetings, right?

And there are some districts that um don't have as heavy of a live, so the council member holds the community uh meetings themselves.

Some of the districts have the community meetings uh strictly online.

Um so each approach is very different.

And when you paint something with a brush like this and make it uniform, it makes it very difficult.

Um, and because of that, I I just can't support um this rule change.

It it just it does not uh make sense to me.

And so um I won't be able to vote in support of it.

Thank you.

Next is uh council member prep T, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um posing a question through the chair, um, understanding that if if we um pass this rule change this evening, that it would not take effect until late January, early February.

My question then is is posing through the chair to potentially to Director Darby is once this rule change took effect, would it affect legislation that is currently pending, or would it just affect legislation that is filed after the rule change effective date?

So uh ostensibly, if I have currently have a broad zoning bill um and it is deferred until uh uh March or April, will this rule change then affect that legislation?

Thank you for the question.

Special council Darby, you're recognized.

I think it's reasonable to expect this rule change to only affect new legislation filed after the rule becomes effective because it addresses items on first reading and what has to happen between first reading and second reading.

Okay, all right.

Uh next, council member Capp.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'm coming at this from a slightly different angle.

I certainly understand where this is coming from and I appreciate that, but to me, the rules that we set for ourselves should be stable throughout the term of a council.

And when I consider a rule change, there should be a really strongly compelling reason to change the rules that we set for ourselves and that do provide stability for the legislative process throughout our terms.

And so when I'm evaluating uh proposed rule change, it's on that basis.

And um, the proponents of this seem to be saying that it won't actually change current practice.

To me, that does not amount to an overwhelmingly compelling reason to change the rules that we've set for this term, and for that reason, I can't support this proposal.

All right.

Uh chair of uh rules confirmations and public elections, uh, Mr.

Cash, you're recognized.

Previous question.

Okay.

Um uh councilmember Cash has uh called the previous question.

Councilmember Cash has uh called the previous question.

Is there a second?

Okay.

This is non-debatable.

It requires two-thirds of those uh voting.

Um if you want to end debate, um, you vote aye.

Uh if you want to continue debate, um, you vote no.

Uh, we will try this first by voice, as I always remind you all, it's about number, not volume.

Okay.

Um, all in favor of the previous question, please say aye.

Any voting?

No.

Okay.

Um, I believe that the ayes have it.

Um, and we will move uh to the vote.

All right.

Um because this does require 27 votes.

Um, and uh because I do hear um some for and against, and um uh I'm gonna ask Mr.

Clerk uh to please uh load the vote and um we will vote by machine tablets uh with all votes in, uh Mr.

Clerk, please show the vote, Mr.

Clerk.

I think we have an inaccuracy there.

Um so this uh colleagues, I know what the monitor says to those at home.

Our rules changes do require a supermajority of 27 votes.

Um so this rule change has failed um with 23 votes in favor.

Mr.

Clerk, what was the rest of the vote?

Okay, uh 23, 13, and one.

23 in favor, 13 against, um, uh, and one not voting or abstaining.

Um again, it does require 27 votes.

Um, all right.

So now um we are moving uh to item uh I two.

Uh this is rule uh nine point uh three, sponsor Evan Siegel.

This is an amendment to the rules of procedure uh 9.3.

Um that is regarding uh the practices for ordinances on first reading and how they shall be considered.

Um and by rule.

Um uh speaking of rules, um uh this rules change proposal is deferred uh one meeting and will be considered at the next meeting on December uh 16th.

Um we advise members to look in their analysis as always um where these rules changes can be found uh in advance of the meeting.

All right.

Um now uh we are moving into section uh J, uh bills on public hearing.

Spanish interpretation services are provided for all Metro Council public hearings.

Council office team member Karina Valdez is here as the interpreter.

Ms.

Valdez, will you please share how you can help?

Loseruicios interpretaciones serán disponibles en la densidad pública.

Gracias.

Gas yes, Ms.

Valdez, we appreciate you.

All right.

Uh for those wishing to speak this evening as part of public hearings, please do state your name.

But it is not required for you to provide your exact address if you do not wish to do so.

Uh you may want to tell us in what neighborhood or area you live, your connection to an agenda item or project, or uh who your council member is.

All right.

Um uh the first uh item on uh public hearing uh is agenda item one, ordinance BL 2025-703, sponsors Gad Horton and Allen.

Um if somebody could get Ms.

Gad, please.

Um this is an ordinance to amend title 17 of the Metro Code of Laws the zoning ordinance of the Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County by applying a historic landmark overlay district for property located at 4301 Harding Pike.

This is 296 feet southwest of Woodlawn Drive.

This is zoned CS and located within the Harding White Bridge Urban Design Overlay.

This is 3.99 acres.

It has a companion bill, which is agenda item two, ordinance BL 2025 704, uh, which requires certain materials to be uh restricted in the construction of uh the buildings that are um uh included in ordinance uh 703.

Um Ms.

Gadd, um we are looking at agenda items uh one and two, companions to each other, 703 and uh 704.

Um again, sponsors Gad Hort and Alan.

You're recognized.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker, and all for your patience as I come back in after answering my niece's call, FaceTime call.

So thank you all so much.

Um being a good auntie, that's good.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

But with this, um, I actually am going to defer one more time with the permission of this council.

I'll defer to the first meeting in January.

All right.

Our first and only meeting um in January.

Um, okay.

There is a motion to defer uh ordinances 703 and companion 704 uh to the first and only meeting um in January.

That is the meeting of January 20th.

That is a public hearing night, um, just uh for people's awareness.

Um again, it's been properly seconded.

Is there any discussion on that uh deferral motion?

Okay, it's been seconded.

Any discussion?

All right, seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

Um these uh two uh bills have been uh deferred uh for uh their public hearing consideration to the meeting of January 20th.

All right, uh next is agenda item three.

This is ordinance BL 2025-1006 sponsors Gamble, Parker, and Benedict.

Uh this is an ordinance amending chapters 17.04, 17.12, and 17.13 of the Metro Code to amend the regulations pertaining to height within the single family residential RS and one and two family residential R zoning districts, and to simplify the conditions by which two family dwellings may be permitted in the AG, AR2A, R80, R40, R30, R20, R15, R10, R8, R8A, R6, and R6A zoning districts.

Sponsors Gamble, Parker, and Benedict.

Um Ms.

Gamble, uh sponsor, you are recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor request to open the public hearing.

Okay.

Um, I declare the public hearing open uh for Ms.

Gamble's legislation 1006.

Would all members of the public hear in support of this bill, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Would all members of the public hear in opposition to this bill, please raise your hand?

Okay.

Um seeing that there are folks uh here uh both in uh support and opposition.

Uh do those folks in uh support uh uh seek to be recognized and speak.

Yes, okay.

Please go ahead and come forward.

Um persons uh in opposition uh will speak after those speaking in support.

Okay.

Um uh go ahead.

You are recognized.

Thank you.

I'm Kay Bowers and Jeff Prepteep is my wonderful council member.

And I live in the neighborhood near Lipscomb University.

I'm here to support uh BL 2025 1006, which would reduce the height of out of scale buildings by 10 feet from 45 to 35 and less surrounding properties are taller.

It would also reduce the maximum floors by half story to two and a half stories.

Uh the zoning code includes other overlays that further reduce height where desired by neighborhoods.

And then the duplex rule really seeks to uh simplify what already uh the the uh language that already exist uh to make it less burdensome because it's confusing, it's complex, it's difficult to understand, and so builders say just forget it.

So we don't want that.

Um duplex are still not allowed in RS, so that doesn't change, and the scale of the new duplexes will be modest with reduced height recommendations and BL 2025 2505 and 1006, and just a few data points.

We have a housing housing crisis, so it's imperative that key stakeholders like our council members adopt a sense of urgency.

So it's imperative that key stakeholders like our council members adopt a sense of urgency.

49.4% of our young adults are now saying they are considering leaving Nashville in the next few years.

The average age of a homeowner is now 40 years old.

And teachers like the Lyft driver who picked me up early one morning for a plight.

Now I have to work a second job at four in the morning before she goes to school.

Your time has concluded.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Bowers.

All right.

Um, anyone else uh speaking in support?

Okay.

Um seeing none, uh, those in opposition who are wishing to speak, if you would please come forward.

First among you can go ahead and come right on up to the podium.

Go ahead.

You're recognized.

Uh thanks for the opportunity to speak with uh with all of you tonight.

Uh my name's Brian Newman.

I'm in District 19 in Salem Town for uh Jacob Koopin's district.

Uh I've lived and worked inside the downtown loop for more than 15 years.

Um I oppose the bill as written, but I strongly support uh Councilmember Cupin's amendment that exempts the urban core neighborhoods from this bill.

Uh the proposed height restrictions apply a one-size-fits-all rule to areas that have very different needs.

Um the downtown loop is not a suburban block, it's a compact, mixed-use urban core where height and density are tools for walkability, transit viability, and affordable housing supply.

The only path to affordable housing is supply, and the only path to increase supply in the downtown core is height.

We can't build short and wide here in our areas.

Uh imposing blunt limits here will not preserve the character.

It'll freeze progress, it'll push development outward and make housing less affordable.

I'm very grateful uh for council member Coupen's willingness to meet with his constituents to hear our concerns and to offer up a proposed amendment excluding the downtown neighborhoods from this bill.

Um I request that you please approve the bill as amended by Mr.

Cupin so our neighborhood can continue to evolve in ways that support transit, small businesses, and the diverse urban life that we've worked to build.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, please.

You're recognized.

Hey, good evening.

I'm Jeff Beecham and a resident of Germantown.

I oppose the bill as written and urge support for Councilmember Coopin's amendment.

I recently got married and we had our first child, and we chose to live in Nashville's urban core because of the tight-knit community walkability, the diversity and perspectives that make our neighborhoods and vibrant uh distinct from the suburbs.

I want to raise my family in that environment and my children to attend Nashville public schools, but this bill would make that more difficult.

Reducing building height inside the downtown loop would severely limit the square footage and yard space needed to comfortably house a family on narrow urban lots.

It would also drive up the cost of the limited housing stock that can still accommodate families.

Please approve the bill as amended by council member Koopens so I can keep my family in Nashville.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

You can adjust the mic as needed if you need to pull it up.

Uh good evening.

I'm Monica Dolan.

I'm a resident of a downtown neighborhood.

I oppose this bill in its current form, but I'm fully supportive of the bill with council member Cupin's amendment.

Our neighborhoods have repeatedly voiced support for increased density, variety, and affordability.

Height limits in this bill would undermine those values by limiting housing supply and discouraging mixed-use projects that keep people close to their jobs and services.

If the goal is livable, affordable neighborhoods, constraining height inside the loop is counterproductive.

Please approve the coupon amendment so we can preserve the walkable, diverse, and affordable urban core we all enjoy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next.

Go ahead, you're recognized.

Good evening.

My name is Derek Lyle.

I live on Fifth Avenue North in Salem Town.

I am pro-housing and pro density.

Uh, like the others, I am against this bill as currently drafted because I do not think that the blanket reduction of height across single-family homes is appropriate in our part of the city.

Uh great walkable neighborhoods throughout the world have a variety of housing types, styles, and sizes.

Uh, this uh bill would limit that within our uh area and the residents of the downtown loop have not uh shown any support for that.

Um I'm very appreciative of councilmember coupon for engaging with uh residents in his district, hearing our concerns, working with us to ensure that the urban core can continue to involve uh and have this variety of housing types.

I encourage you to pass his amendment prior to uh moving this bill uh for full approval.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um, is there anyone else uh seeking to be recognized speaking in opposition?

Seeing none, uh with that, I will declare uh the public hearing closed.

Um, and it's back to you, uh, Ms.

Gamble for a uh motion on your bill.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'd like to move for approval and look forward to discussing the bill and pending amendments on third reading in committee.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh there's a motion to approve, and it is uh properly uh seconded.

Uh is there any discussion on the bill at this time?

Uh Ms.

Wiener, uh, you're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

You know, history's a really good teacher.

So permit me for a brief look back.

In 2014, some of us are caution when we were creating the short-term rental categories in the zoning code.

Um 2015 to 2019, as a result of not having it all together.

Um we passed 14 more ordinances that were multi-layered to fix it to close loopholes.

We kept moving the cheese.

We moved the cheese to clarify to clean up to patch loopholes in the STRs.

We changed sleeping room limits, permits, change permits again, insurance, safety rules, census track caps, eligibility, density, advertising occupancy, and more.

We spent years fixing what a more thorough review on the front end might have prevented.

Here we are again.

We're considering a series of amendments without follow-up community engagement, given the complexity of the bills before us.

This is exhibited a lot of confusion and lots of misinformation out there.

Ms.

Wiener, just to clarify, the sponsor has said that um she does not intend for any of the amendments to be offered at this time and is just trying to approve it at this juncture so that it can be uh discussed in committee on third relative to all the amendments.

Okay, then I'll be a no tonight, and I'll be a no then.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Um right, is there any uh further discussion?

Okay, uh seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no?

No.

Um I do believe the ayes still have it.

And you may.

Is there a second and a third for the roll call?

All right.

Uh, Mr.

Clerk, um, so this is a motion to approve on the second of three readings.

Um we'll remind the public that uh Title 17 uh legislation is infinitely deferrable and amendable.

Um, and uh Title 17 goes to committee on its third reading.

So this is a motion uh to approve on uh second reading uh with a roll call vote.

Mr.

Clerk.

Um all votes for those uh present are in.

Uh Mr.

Clerk, if you would please show the vote.

The motion passes with 29 votes in favor, seven against, and one abstention.

Again, this bill has passed on its second of three readings.

All right.

Uh next are agenda items four and five.

They are companions to each other.

Uh sponsor styles.

The first is ordinance BL2025-1089.

This is an ordinance to amend Title 17, the Metro Code of Laws, zoning ordinance of the Metro Government by amending an SP for property located at 3839 Murphosboro Pike, approximately 277 feet north of Old Hickory Boulevard.

This is 65.32 acres and located within the Murphersboro Pike Urban Design Overlay District to permit a mixed use development.

Um its companion um is ordinance one zero nine zero, and it requires that certain materials be restricted in the construction of these buildings.

Ms.

Styles, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Vice Mayor.

Can I open the public hearing?

Yes.

Would all members of the public hear in support of these bills, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Would all members of the public hear in opposition to these uh bills, please raise your hand.

Seeing no one here in opposition, do the persons here in support seek to be recognized or speak?

They are shaking their heads no.

And so with that, Miss Stiles, I will declare the public hearing closed.

And it's back to you for a motion to get this bill before us or bills rather.

Yeah, yes.

Um I'd like to put the substitute on bills.

Can I move to the case?

You know what, Miss Stiles, I think because the substitute just goes on 1089.

We actually can't move them together.

So if you would make a motion to approve on 1089.

I'll make a motion to approve on 1089, please.

Is there a second?

Okay, and now you may make the motion to substitute.

Okay, uh, I'd like to make a motion to substitute with a brief comment if I may.

You may.

Is there a second on the motion to substitute?

All right, go ahead, ma'am.

Uh this substitute actually incorporates some suggestions from the planning commission.

However, on uh third reading, we will have some amendments that are from constituents.

So I just wanted to give a heads up on that.

And uh if we can move for approval, please.

Uh well, actually, we're on the motion to substitute.

Um, okay.

Is there any further discussion?

You've heard a description of the substitute from Ms.

Siles.

Any further discussion on the motion to substitute?

Okay, seeing none, all in favor of the substitute, please say aye.

Um any voting uh no or abstaining.

Okay.

Now, Miss Stiles, if you would please renew your motion um to approve 1089 is substituted and also approve one zero nine zero.

You can just say so moved.

Okay, so moved.

All right, is there a second?

Okay, is there any further discussion?

I could remember the numbers.

It's okay.

Uh seeing none, uh all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

Um these have passed uh their second of three readings as uh substituted.

All right.

Um agenda item six, uh ordinance uh BL 2025-110 sponsor Parker is an ordinance to amend title 17, the Metro Code of Laws is zoning ordinance of the Metro government by changing from RS5 to R6A zoning for property located at 1435 Meridian Street at the corner of Meridian Street and Gatewood Avenue and located within a detached accessory dwelling unit overlay district.

This is 0.18 acres.

Uh Mr.

Parker, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'd like to open the public hearing, please.

Um whoop, I think we have a lack of notice here.

Um all righty.

And so uh given uh the lack of public notice, um uh how would you like to defer this?

I would like to defer to whatever planning recommends if we could ask planning with that recommend for notice planning table.

Um are we okay on one one zero zero sponsor Parker to defer to January 20th, perhaps?

Um they are nodding their head.

Is that okay with you, Mr.

Parker?

Yes, if we can accomplish notice for the uh public hearing on January 20th, I will let the applicants know and um make sure they do that.

Okay, planning is affirming that that is achievable.

Um, and so with that, um there is I'll move a deferral to January 20th to be clear.

Great.

Um it's properly seconded.

Is there any discussion on that deferral motion?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no abstaining?

Okay, that will be uh back on public hearing um uh regarding uh Meridian Street there um on January 20th.

Okay.

All right.

Um next is agenda item seven ordinance uh BL 2025-1116 sponsors Allen and Hancock.

Uh this is an ordinance amending Title 17 of the Metro Code of Laws to add a new electric vehicle charging station use and related definitions and conditions to the zoning code.

Um uh Ms.

Allen, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to defer to the January 20th meeting.

Okay, is there a second for that motion?

Okay, it's properly moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion on the deferral uh motion to the meeting of January 20th?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

Uh this will be on public hearing at the meeting of January 20th.

Okay, next is agenda item eight.

This is ordinance BL 2025-1130, sponsor tailor.

Uh, this is an ordinance to amend title 17, the Metro Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metro government by changing from RS5 to R6A zoning for the property located at 1704 Arthur Avenue, approximately 100 feet 100 feet northeast of Jane Street.

This is 0.17 acres within the detached accessory dwelling unit overlay district.

Councilmember Taylor, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you.

Uh I'd like to open the public hearing.

Okay.

I declare the public hearing open for Councilmember Taylor's ordinance 1130.

Would all members of the public hear in support of this bill, please raise your hand.

Would all members of the public hear in opposition to this bill, please raise your hand.

All right, council member taylor.

Seeing no one here uh seeking to be recognized on either side, I will declare the public hearing closed.

And it's back to you for a motion on your bill.

Thanks.

Move for approval.

All right, is there second?

All right.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, uh, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

This is passed its second of three readings.

Next is agenda item nine, ordinance BL 2025-1131, sponsors Huffman, Evans, and Eastlick.

This is an ordinance to amend title 17, the Metro Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metro Government by applying a corridor design overlay district to various properties located west of Old Lebanon Dirt Road and along Old Hickory Boulevard and Central Pike.

This is 400 and 11 acres.

Um right.

Uh Councilmember Huffman, uh, you are recognized, sir.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh, need to open the public hearing.

Okay.

Uh I declare the public hearing open uh for council members uh Huffman Evans and Eastlicks uh Bill 1131.

Uh would all members of the public hear in support of this bill, please raise your hand.

Would all members of the public hear in opposition to this bill, please raise your hand.

Okay, seeing no one here seeking to be recognized on either side, Councilmember Huffman, I will declare the public hearing closed.

And it's back to you uh for a motion to get this bill uh before us.

Thank you, ma'am.

We have a uh substitute that we need to move.

Yes, sir.

If you'll just first move approval, please move for approval.

Okay, is there a second?

All right.

Now you may make a motion to substitute.

Motion to move the substitute.

Okay.

Um uh would you like to share with colleagues uh what that is about?

Um I will uh just uh real quick just talk to my colleagues about the purpose of this.

So the corridor uh design overlay that we're really trying to do here is to control the overall look and feel of the central pike slash old Hickory Boulevard area.

Um our goal here, our intention is really just to uh improve the overall aesthetics of the community.

We've had a lot of business support for this in the area, so we're really excited to uh to move forward with this.

So uh I ask for your approval.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, so there's a motion to substitute.

It's properly seconded, and if you've heard a description of that substitute.

Is there any discussion on the motion to substitute?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting uh no or abstaining.

All right, your substitute is on your bill, and if you'd renew your motion to approve, is substituted.

Motion to approve the substitute.

All right.

Any discussion on that?

Seeing none.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right, this has passed its second of three readings as substituted.

Uh next are agenda items 10 and 11.

They are companions to each other.

Sponsors Hancock and Webb.

Ordinances uh 2025-1132, and again the companion 1133.

1132 is an ordinance to mend Title 17 of the Metro Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of Metro Government by changing from RS5 to SP zoning for properties located at 400 and 408 Maple Street at the southwest southwest, no southeast corner of Maple Street and Fourth Avenue.

This is 0.5 acres to permit three residential units, and again, that companion 1133, which will require certain materials to be restricted in the construction buildings uh at the address in 1132.

Um sponsor Webb, Ms.

Webb, you are recognized.

I was gonna open the public hearing, but we need to defer it.

Okay dokes.

All right.

Um that is totally fine.

Do you want to make a motion to defer?

Yes, ma'am.

I'd like to make a motion to defer.

To January the 20th.

Okay, um, there is a motion to defer these two companion bills, 1132 and 1133 for their second consideration and public hearing at the meeting of January 20th.

Um, do I hear a second?

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none.

All in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

Uh these bills will be taken up at the meeting of uh January 20th for their public hearing.

Next uh is agenda item 12 ordinance BL 2025-1134 sponsor Welsh.

Uh this is an ordinance to men title 17 of the Metro Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metro government by changing from RS 7.5 to R6A zoning for property located at 510 High Street, located approximately 275 feet east of Mead Avenue.

This is 0.18 acres.

Councilmember Welsh, you're recognized, ma'am.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'd like to open the public hearing.

Okay, I declare the public hearing open for Councilmember Welsh's bill one one three four.

Would all members of the public hear in support of this bill, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Would all members of the public hear in opposition to this bill, please raise your hand.

Seeing no one here in opposition, does the gentleman here in support seek to be recognized?

He's shaking his head no.

And so with that, I will declare the public hearing closed, and it's back to you for a motion on your bill.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'd like to move to approve.

All right.

Properly moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

Uh this has passed its uh second of three readings.

Next is agenda item 13, ordinance BL 2025-1135, sponsor tailor.

This is an ordinance to mend title 17, the Metro Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metro government by changing from RS5 to R6A zoning for property located at 1641 11th Avenue North, located on the corner of 11th Avenue North and Hualess Street.

This is 0.17 acres within the detached accessory dwelling unit overlay district.

Councilmember Taylor, you're recognized, sir.

Open the public hearing, please.

Okay, I declare the public hearing open for council member Taylor's uh ordinance 1135.

Would all members of the public hear in support of this bill, please raise your hand.

Okay, would all members of the public hear in opposition to this bill, please raise your hand.

Seeing no one here on either side, I will declare the public hearing closed.

It's back to you, Mr.

Taylor, for a motion on your bill.

Thank you.

I'd like to move for approval.

Okay, it's properly moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

This is passed its second of three readings.

And that uh concludes our public hearing.

All right.

Um now uh we are on agenda item K, our consolidated consent agenda.

All resolutions and second and three reading ordinances on this agenda are included on the consent agenda if recommended for approval unanimously by all committees to which the item was referred.

Items on the consent agenda will be voted on at a single time.

The item number along with the resolution and ordinance number of the items on the consent agenda will be read by me.

Members of the council may remove any item from the consent agenda by request before the consent agenda vote is taken.

All right.

The first item uh proposed uh for the consolidated consent agenda is agenda item 15, resolution 2025-1658.

Agenda item 19, resolution 2025-1662.

Agenda item 21, resolution 2025-1664.

Agenda item 22, resolution 2025-1665.

Agenda item 23, resolution 2025-1666.

Agenda item 24, resolution 2025-1667.

Agenda item 25, resolution 2025-1668.

Agenda item 26, resolution 2025-1669.

Agenda item 27, resolution 2025-1670.

Agenda item 28, resolution 2025-1671.

Agenda item 29, resolution 2025-1672.

Agenda item 31, resolution 2025-1674.

Agenda item 32, resolution 2025-1675.

Agenda item 35, resolution 2025-1678.

Agenda item 36, resolution 2025-1679.

Agenda item 38, resolution 2025-1681.

Agenda item 39, resolution 2025-1682.

Agenda item 40, resolution 2025-1683.

Agenda item 41, resolution 2025-1684.

Agenda item 42, resolution 2025-1685.

And now for bills on second reading proposed for the consolidated consent agenda.

First among those is agenda item 84, uh Ordinance BL 2025-1108.

Agenda item 90, ordinance BL 2025-1138.

Agenda item 91, ordinance BL 2025-1139.

All right, now moving on to bills on third reading proposed for the consolidated consent agenda.

First among those is agenda item 95, ordinance BL 2025-1, no, dash nine five six.

Thank you.

Um appreciate that catch, Mr.

Eastlick, um, from the committee uh for government operations and regulations.

So 87 has been uh removed from consent because it cannot be there without a unanimous vote of the committee.

All right.

Um next, uh council member Ewing, you're recognized.

Thank you.

I'd like to remove item 105 BL 2025-1121.

Councilmember uh Ewing uh has requested uh the uh removal of agenda item 105.

Um this is an ordinance one one uh two one.

It will be removed from consent.

Um okay, and next is council member Greg.

You're recognized, sir.

Thank you.

I'd like to remove item number 41 RS 2025 1684.

Okay, council member Greg has requested the removal of uh agenda item 41.

Um this is resolution 1684.

It uh will be removed from consent.

All right.

Um any other members seeking to remove um an item from the consent agenda.

Okay, uh Mr.

Clerk, uh, are all committee reports in for the items on the consent agenda?

Yes, all committee reports are in.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

All right, members, is there a motion for approval of the consent agenda?

Okay, properly moved and seconded.

All in favor, please say aye.

Count council has passed all items on the consent agenda.

All right.

So next, uh, we will go back in agenda order um uh for items that were not on consent.

So back to resolutions we go.

Section L on our agenda.

First item there is agenda item 14, resolution 2025-1655, sponsor Styles, Evans, and Welsh.

This is a resolution calling for the mayor's office and the Department of Emergency Communications to enact various reforms relative uh to departmental leadership and workplace culture.

Uh councilmember Stiles, you are recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh committee reports, please.

Yes, for the report of the public health and safety committee, Chair Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Public Health and Safety recommended uh one meeting deferral.

All right.

Um, well, I guess we know where that is headed, but we will still get uh given our rules, uh the report of the government operations and uh regulations committee as well.

Uh Ms.

Hill, you're recognized, Chair.

Uh we recommend a six in favor, two against, and zero not voting as substituted.

Okay.

Um uh even so um uh with a uh report of uh the standing committee or a vote of the standing committee, um, one of them uh of a one meeting deferral by rule eight point one.

Um that is a mandatory deferral uh by rule, Ms.

Styles.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um so this will be uh taken up again then at the meeting of December 16th.

Okayy.

Uh next is agenda item uh 16, uh resolution 2025-1659 sponsors tombs, huffman, and Johnston.

This is a resolution approving a letter of agreement and memorandum of understanding between the Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County and the Nashville Downtown Partnership related to an application for the FY26 downtown public safety grant from the state of Tennessee.

Uh Councilmember Toombs, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam vice mayor.

Um committee report.

Yes, ma'am, for the report of the budget and finance committee, please, chair.

President finance vote at uh uh recommend a one meeting deferral, 10 in favor, zero against zero not voting.

Okay, and for the report of the public health and safety committee, Chair Huffman.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Public Health and Safety recommended a one meeting deferral with a re-referral to committee, not in favor, zero against zero not voting.

Okay.

Um so when we defer at one meeting, it's going back to committee.

Anyway, so um uh by rule 8.1 uh with that one meeting deferral.

Uh that is by rule that will be uh addressed again uh by both committees uh at the meeting of December 16th.

Okay.

Um next is uh agenda item 17.

Uh this is resolution 2025-1660, sponsored tombs.

Uh this is an initial resolution determining uh to issue general obligation bonds of the Metro government of Nashville and Davidson County in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed uh 531 million nine hundred and twenty-five thousand, also known as the capital spending plan or CSP resolution.

Um Ms.

Toombs um I'm gonna go to you.

Um, and as you know, we have a rule regarding the CSP.

So you're recognized.

Thank you, madam vice mayor, pursuant to rule budget and finance bullet to recommend a one meeting deferral, 10 in favor, zero against zero not voting.

All right.

Rule 21 um requires that the CSP must be deferred one meeting.

Thank you.

All right.

Um so the CSP will again be taken up at the meeting of December 16th.

All right.

Uh next is agenda item 18, resolution 2025 uh-1661.

Uh sponsor Tombs.

This is a resolution reducing the authority of the Metro government of Nashville and Davidson County to issue um general obligation bonds pursuant to certain initial resolutions previously adopted by the Metro County Council.

Ms.

Tombs.

Thank you, madam vice mayor.

Um, in order to track what the CSP budget and finance voted to recommend a one meet and deferral, 10 in favor, zero against, zero not voting.

Okay.

Um, all right.

Uh this will um again though be deferred by rule.

Um, right.

So no vote required.

Um, again to track um as it is a companion to the CSP.

All right.

Um next is agenda item 20, uh resolution 2025-1663 sponsors Toombs and Evan Siegel.

Uh this is a resolution appropriating uh to a certain account for the benefit of the Metropolitan Transit Authority uh in the amount of eight million dollars.

Uh Councilmember Toombs, Chair of Budget and Finance, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Uh committee report, budget and finance voted to recommend approval.

10 in favor, zero against zero not voting.

All right.

And for the report of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, a chair Evan Siegel, you're recognized.

In favor, zero against and zero not voting.

Okay.

Um per uh rule uh eight point one.

Um that is a mandatory uh one meeting deferral.

Uh so this item will be taken up again um at the meeting of December 16th.

Okay.

All right.

Um next among our resolutions is agenda item 30.

Uh, this is resolution 2025-1673.

Sponsors Tombs, Huffman, Johnston, Gamble, Wiener, and Spain.

This is a resolution accepting a statewide school resource officer SRO program grant from the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security to the Metro government, acting by and through the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department for the placement of school resource officers in schools for the continued efforts to establish and maintain safe and secure learning environments for eligible K through 12 public schools and public charter schools.

Uh Ms.

Toombs, you're recognized.

Thank you again.

Um Committee reports, budget and finance budget to recommend approval.

Nine in favor, one against zero not voting.

Okay.

Um and for the report of the public health and safety committee, Chair Huffman.

Public health and safety voted for approval.

Six in favor, two against one not voting.

Okay.

Um, all right.

Uh it's back to you, uh, Ms.

Toombs uh for a motion on the bill.

Move for approval.

Is there second?

Okay, properly moved and uh seconded.

Uh we are on uh to discussion.

Uh is there any discussion um on this bill?

Um okay, seeing none, um, we will move to a vote, um, but recognizing that uh we will likely have a uh no vote or an abstention because it is a resolution with only one vote by rule.

Um, this must be a roll call vote.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Clerk, if you would please open the vote.

With all votes in, Mr.

Clerk, please show the vote.

All right, the motion passes, and this resolution has been adopted with 27 votes in favor, six votes against, and three abstentions.

Next on our agenda is uh item 33, resolution 2025-1676 sponsors Tombs, Evan Siegel, Gad Hill, Gamble, Welsh, and Ellis.

This is a resolution appropriating uh $59,994 through a grant contract by and between the Metro government, acting by and through the Metro Department of Water and Sewerage Services and the Cumberland River Compact to provide trash and debris removal around Nashville's waterways.

Uh Ms.

Toombs, you are uh recognized.

Uh, first for your committee reports, please, ma'am.

Thank you.

Budget and finance voted to recommend approval of the amendment, 10 in favor, zero against zero not voting, and recommended approval of the resolution as amended.

10 in favor, zero against, zero not voting.

All right.

And for the report of the transportation infrastructure committee, uh, Chair Evan Siegel.

Thank you, Madam President.

The transportation infrastructure committee voted in favor of the amendment.

Six in favor, zero against zero not voting.

And as amended, six in favor, zero against and zero not voting.

All right.

Uh thank you so much.

Back to you, Ms.

Timbs.

Move for approval.

All right.

Um, is there second?

Okay.

And I move the amendment.

All right.

There's a motion to amend.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Anything you want to say about the amendment?

Not really.

Okay.

Um, all righty.

Uh is uh there any discussion on the motion to amend.

Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

Okay, if you'd renew your motion uh to approve this amendment.

For approval is amended.

All right.

Any discussion on that?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

This resolution has been adopted as amended.

Next is agenda item 34, resolution 2025-1677 sponsors tombs, Evan Siegel, GAD, Gamble, Welsh, Ellis, and Wiener.

This is a resolution appropriating $50,000 through a grant contract by and between the Metro government, acting by and through the Metro Department of Water and Sewerage Services and the Tennessee Environmental Council to provide trash and debris removal around Nashville's waterways.

Uh, this sounds familiar.

Uh Councilmember Teams, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

Um, committee reports, budget and finance voted to recommend approval of the amendment.

10 in favor, zero against zero not voting, and voted to recommend approval of the resolution as amended.

10 in favor, zero against, zero not voting.

All right.

And for the report of the transportation infrastructure committee, Chair Evan Siegel.

Transportation Infrastructure voted um in favor of the amendment.

Six in favor, zero against, and zero not voting.

And as amended, six in favor, zero against, zero not voting.

Okay.

Um it's back to you, Ms.

Times.

Move for approval.

All right.

Move approval of the amendment.

All right.

Any uh discussion on that amendment.

Seeing none.

Uh, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

Okay.

Move for approval as amended.

Any discussion on that.

Seeing none.

All in favor, uh, please say aye.

Any voting, no or abstaining.

All right.

Uh, you have adopted this resolution as amended.

Next is agenda item 37.

Uh, resolution 2025-1680, sponsored Johnston.

This is a resolution requesting the Metropolitan Planning Department to create a countywide map that identifies areas that are appropriate for the new residential zoning districts proposed by BL 2025-1005, including RN1, RN2, R L one, R L two, and RL3, consistent with the adopted Nashville next community character manual and the Metro Code of Laws.

Council Member Johnston, you are recognized.

Thank you, committee reports, please.

All right.

Uh, for the report of the planning and zoning committee, uh, Chair Horton, you are recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh the planning and zoning committee considered ours 2025 1680, uh, and recommended against approval.

Five in favor, seven against, zero not voting.

All right.

Um, with that report in, it's back to you, Ms.

Johnson.

Thank you.

Um, so this resolution came uh out of a conversation that I had with Director Kemp and uh Ms.

Milligan about two months ago, I guess.

And we were talking about um the different zoning districts and the concern around uh around those from a lot of our community.

And it was mentioned that they were planning to put together a map that shows where these districts are appropriate.

And I literally said Eureka.

That's exactly what I think would be helpful to let the public know to increase transparency to show what our intentions are, what the intentions are doesn't mean that um if anyway, and so I said, Well, let's do this right now.

And they said, Well, we can't really do it right now because the zoning districts don't actually exist.

The bill has to pass first for us to be able to contemplate what where these things are are appropriate or not.

And I I thought about that for a while, and then I had some conversations with other planning staff, and I just decided that it was BS.

And I think that we absolutely can create this map that that increases the public trust that shows transparency that that will bring the temperature down.

We've got we've gotten thousands at this point emails with expressing extreme concern.

And whether you disagree with that, whether you think people misunderstand the fact that we're receiving this this many emails in opposition or asking to defer shows that we have not really done our job as well as we should have.

Um I think that the whole thing has been rolled out like a soup sandwich, quite frankly, and it's really hard to roll that back.

But I think that we could there are steps that we could take to make this better.

And in yesterday's committee meeting, we just they said that well, they're planning on doing this basically anyway.

They said it wasn't a map, it was an update to the community character manual.

That is not the verbiage that was used on the phone.

They set a map.

Maybe the map is in the CCM.

I don't know.

And Director Darby made the point that this is a non-binding resolution, and if that's how they choose to interpret it and they come up with the map that is an in an improved map or the updated map in the CCM, that that's what we get, then that's fine.

Anything to increase transparency around this and to um foster some type of public trust.

This whole thing gives me a lot of heartburn, and it should give everyone in this room heartburn, whether you agree with the zoning districts or not, understanding that there's so many people, the people that voted to put us in the room, don't feel comfortable.

We have work to do.

So this is just a tool that they're planning to do after the it's passed anyway.

Let's start the process now to foster some type of trust and transparency around where these zoning districts are appropriate.

Um special counsel has reminded me that you have yet to make a motion.

Uh I would move approval, please.

All right.

Is there a second?

Okay.

All right.

Typically that discussion comes after.

Thanks for catching that special counsel.

Um, so there's a proper motion to approve, it's properly uh seconded, and we are on to discussion.

First in the queue is council member Parker.

You recognize, sir.

I think Vice Mayor, did we get committee reports on this?

Uh we did have the committee report from uh Mr.

Uh Rollin.

Five and seven.

Thank you.

So um, you know, I was present at the for the committee discussion yesterday, and I I think there was it was a lot of discussion about whether uh the process of updating the CCM counted as a map or not.

Um I pointed out that you know the CCM exists as a map in the parcel viewer that's very accessible um to folks, and it's a lot easier to digest than the hundreds and hundreds of pages in the sort of PDF version of the community character manual itself.

And ultimately where I landed in committee was, you know, if we all kind of understand that that process that planning was already engaged with with uh planning to do, updating the CCM, uh making it accessible to folks, if that satisfied what the sponsor was trying to do, then we were okay with the resolution.

But based on the sponsor's comments just now, that does not satisfy what the sponsor is looking to have done.

So I mean, I I'm not sure what the sponsor is looking for.

Like we have the CCM, we have the layer in the um parcel viewer where you can access it easily.

Um I just I don't see I can't support this today because I think the sponsor is looking for something that is not what's contemplated by the department and is not necessary.

Uh it's it would just like a giant printed map of the CCM.

Like I'm sure they can do that after they make the updates, but I I just didn't get the sense that folks were on the same page, and so I can't support it today.

All right.

Uh next in the queue is uh council member Gamble.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

And I was also present at the committee meeting yesterday when we discussed this.

And yes, planning has uh stated that they intend to update the character manual, but I'd like if planning could just explain exactly the process for updating the character manual and the mapping within the character manual.

All right.

Um Ms.

Milligan, you are recognized on behalf of the planning department uh to answer council member Gamble's question.

Sure, thank you.

So the land use policy, when we talk about that, it is two pieces.

Um there is the actual land use policy map.

The entire county is um at the parcel level designated with land use policies.

That goes from everything from T6, which um is our downtown area in the most intense, all the way to T2 rural, includes open space, special districts.

Um, we're organized on something that's called a transect.

And so every piece of property in the county is designated by those land use policies.

And then accompanying that is the community character manual, which gives um sort of breakdowns of those land use policies in regards to characteristics, appropriate zoning districts, um more detail on appropriate zoning districts per each character area.

Um, because not every uh zoning district that's that's noted in the community character manual is appropriate in all parts of a policy.

And so the the text of the community character manual gives you those details.

So those two things work together.

We have the map of all of the districts, all the land use policies across the county, and then we have the community character manual, and so that's sort of what makes up the land use policies.

All right.

Uh councilmember Gamble, does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you.

And so I I just uh caution on this particular uh resolution because it's just asking for a map without having those other pieces, the land use policy, the character manual, and the planning department intends to do a comprehensive update upon approval of these uh of this new zoning districts.

If they're approved, then they can do a comprehensive update of all of those things, the map, the policy, the character manual, and not just have a map.

So for those reasons, I uh voted against it in committee and will be voting against it tonight.

Thanks.

All right.

Um, Ms.

Johnson, do you seek to be recognized again at this time or your colleagues who have yet to speak?

Would you like them to be able to speak first?

All right, go ahead.

So literally in the caption, it says consistent with the adopted Nashville next community carrier manual and the metropolitan code of laws.

It's a non-binding resolution.

If planning decides to interpret this request to update the community character manual, like they say they're gonna do after this passes, what I'm asking is whatever you are going to update, mapping within the community character manual, the community character manual itself.

Whatever you're planning to do to show where these zoning districts are appropriate so that we can show that to the public, you're saying you're gonna do it after we pass it.

I'm saying do it now.

That's all this is is saying do this now so that we can be transparent with the public, help to educate better, bring the temperature down, foster some type of community trust within planning, people, representation, government, all of it.

This I've never seen besides NEST, I have never seen this community get so up in arms, and I say the entire county.

We've gotten thousands of emails.

We've got to do better.

And if this is a tool to do that, to do it before we normally would do it after it passes, then I think that that's what we should do.

That's that's all this is.

All right, next in the queue is council member Styles.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um I rise in support of this resolution.

Uh, to Councilmember Johnston's point.

Whenever we get this many emails, people showing up in t-shirts, people wearing buttons, we are failing and not doing something right.

I understand that we have opinions about what we think we should do with housing in other cities are doing, but we need to take a beat because the people that elected us are telling us they're not okay.

And so for us to be pompous and say we know better, you know, we're kings, queens, or whatever, um, and we get to make the decisions, it doesn't make any sense.

This gives us an opportunity to let planning say where these things should go.

I just think that's important.

And the infrastructure state, like all the things that we could wait for before we move forward that are not available to us right now.

Just take a beat.

So please approve this resolution.

All right.

Um next uh in the queue is council member Evans.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'm on the opposite side, probably in how I'll vote compared to the previous speakers, but I also think that why not go ahead and have this conversation about what a map looks like now.

We don't necessarily have to wait.

And also kind of, of course, reminding everybody it is non-binding.

They can completely ignore this message.

They, you know, other departments have ignored other messages that we've sent.

Um, but at the same time, I do feel like a map would be helpful, and whatever that looks like if it's part of the community character manual, if it's a layer, you know, in the development tracker or parcel viewer, whatever.

I think it could be something that would be helpful for the community to see.

So I'm gonna support this today.

All right.

Uh, council member Eastlick, you're recognized, sir.

Oh, I'm sorry, sir.

Punch the wrong button.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

It certainly feels like an objection to something that should be simply done.

We, like others have said, have seen a lot of emails, a lot of resistance, a lot of pushback.

And at this point, what we're hearing is well, we got to pass this before we figure out what it's going to look like.

I think that's completely wrong.

We are getting so much pushback on this.

The least we should do is defer this until we get more input.

I think this whole city feels like this is being rammed down their throat.

We're not speaking on a deferral.

So you're we're on a motion to approve, sir.

There's no way to deny the people aren't comfortable with this.

We absolutely could use this map, and I support it, and I think everybody else should, or you're just not listening to your constituents.

Next is Councilmember Nash.

You're recognized.

I would ask the audience, please stop clapping so we can just keep proceeding through our debate.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr.

Nash.

Oh, I'm sorry, sir.

Go ahead.

I understand what the sponsors try to do here.

And I appreciate it.

And a lot of those emails all came from one spot in this county.

I'm not sure that the opposition is quite as broad as is indicated by all these emails.

And I think one of the best ways to address their concerns is to pass these bills and show them that the world is not gonna fall.

Sky isn't gonna fall.

And my issue, we don't do maps.

Well, where would RM40 go or where would RM80 go?

We don't do maps for those.

And it's just kind of the same process.

When we get to going to zone something, there'll be hearings, there'll be public hearings, and people can tell us whether that's a good spot for that zoning or not.

Thank you, Mr.

Nash.

Next is uh Council Member Timbs.

You recognize.

Um, thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

I think that uh council member Nash actually um took some of my points.

Um, as someone who does a plethora of community meetings in my district, uh as a council member who has discussed these bills at length and at on multiple occasions in my district, co-hosted a uh uh community meeting with district one and three.

Um I I take offense when folks say that, oh, the entire county, you're not listening to your constituents, unless you're saying district two isn't part of the county.

I am listening to my constituents and and and doing outreach.

Um I understand some of the concern.

A lot of it is based off misinformation.

Um I don't think that this, I know it's a non-binding resolution, it really doesn't do anything.

Um planning department already plans on updating uh the the community character manual.

So it's there's really no point to it.

Uh if it makes people feel better, I I get that, but really planning department is already planning to do that.

They're already planning to tell us where these new zoning designations are appropriate.

Nobody's property is getting rezoned.

These are zoning designations, just like RM40, RM20, RSR, and all the other zoning designations that we have.

Um, so I I can't be in support of this because it it really has no point to it, this particular resolution.

Um, and again, going to Councilman Nash uh point of view.

I know there are people in certain parts of the county that are against this, but it is not true that the entire county is against uh these measures.

So thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Times.

Uh Councilmember Porterfield, Pro Tim, you are recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh I rise in opposition to this, and I just want to say that it makes my heart so incredibly happy when I can um be on the same side of the issue as Councilmember Nash.

So, Councilmember Nash, I agree wholeheartedly with um the things that you have stated.

Um, I think that planning has given us their intention.

We um, you know, these are the the experts on the issue.

We are listening to our constituents as councilmember toom said so eloquently stated.

Many council members are having meetings listening to their constituents.

And I just wanted to remind our colleagues when we talk about uh opposition.

I actually live through the Titans vote, the fuses vote, the tasers, employee wages.

So I don't think I think it's a bit disingenuous to say um that uh we've never seen as much opposition to something.

We see a lot of opposition to a lot of things, and people show up in t-shirts lots of times.

So I just would like to encourage my colleagues on the other side of this issue to keep that same energy when our constituents come out and complain about surveillance and the other things that they are in opposition to.

Next is agenda or no, uh Berkeley Allen.

You're next in the queue.

Thank you, madam president.

Oh, I am gonna vote in in support of this simply because I believe transparency is important, and I believe that what the planning department intends to do.

I have an amendment for another bill coming up that would ask them to to just buy some time so that we can get that information into the community character manual.

I think having information available for people is important.

I can't support the date of January 31 for a deadline, but I appreciate the uh the intent of transparency.

And I think the real discussion comes later when we talk about ensuring that that happens.

This is at least a public statement that we want people to have something they can visually look at.

I think we've heard that people want to understand this better.

If this helps them understand this better, I appreciate the sponsors' um attempt to do that.

I think that there is latitude for the interpretation to to provide something that will be very meaningful.

Thank you, Miss Allen.

Uh next is Councilmember Welsh.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, though I know this is probably the time we should call the question.

I'm not going to.

I'm leaving that to the people behind me.

My followers.

Um I rise in opposition um to this um for two reasons.

First of all, I'm not understanding what this has to do with transparency or what the reason for this is.

Is this so people can look at the map and say they don't want these zoning districts to be allowed or be applied to where they live so they can complain?

Well, we can't legislate based on people's fears about what might happen.

Everyone only controls their own property.

If you don't want to rezone your property, you don't have to use this zoning district or any other zoning district that currently exists in the code.

I'm just not sure what this map is supposed to do, except to give people another thing to latch on to to say that somehow they don't think that we should be doing something for the good of the entire city that they want it to be more personalized and and localized.

And I just don't think we we just can't um legislate that way.

So um I uh will be voting no on this resolution.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh next in the queue is council member webb, you're recognized.

Not sorry.

Um I rise in support of this, and I agree with Barkley.

You know, we are voted to represent the people in our area.

My area is not for the zoning changes.

So I do believe we need to be transparent.

And I would think it would be a positive thing.

I cannot say that planning doesn't already know where they're anticipating these areas to be.

So why are we fighting transparency on one simple thing?

Y'all know if y'all made a decision based on not knowing where this was going or how many houses we're gonna get out of it, then that was a bad planning on the planning department.

And that's just what I have to say.

So why not put it out there?

If it makes the people feel better, we're here to represent the people.

Okay, whether they're against it or for it, they deserve to know what areas are gonna be affected.

I don't think a lot of my areas are gonna be affected, but there's people maybe sitting beside me that their areas are gonna be affected.

And I believe they people they deserve to know.

And you know they have the data.

They didn't make this decision without looking at how many houses were going on 305 Green Acres or 1974 Union Hill Road or in or in Antioch or in Mount uh East Nashville.

They know the friggin' data.

Hey, be transparent, please.

I heard a BS earlier, I heard a freaking we're not we're not gonna talk like that on the floor.

I think they'd be yes.

No, ma'am, another colleague did.

Okay, so I just I want to ask us members, please to control our language.

I ask you also please please don't point at staff and say derogatory.

Well, it's important at one certain person.

A lot of pointing.

Yeah, so okay.

Um, next is council member Parker.

You're recognized.

Previous question.

All right.

Councilmember Parker has called the previous question.

Is there a second?

Okay.

Um this is non-debatable motion.

It requires uh two-thirds of those voting.

If you wish to end uh debate at this time, you will vote uh yes in favor of the previous question.

If you would like debate to continue, you will vote no.

Um we will try this first by voice, reminding members, please that it is about number, not volume.

All in favor of the previous question, please say aye.

Uh any voting, no.

Okay, I think that's pretty clear.

Um, so uh we are gonna move to the vote um and an abundance of caution.

Um I would ask uh the clerk if you would please um uh open the machine um for this uh vote.

This is a motion to approve council member Johnson's resolution 1680.

This requires a simple majority.

With all votes in, uh, Mr.

Clerk, please show the vote.

This motion has passed or resolution has been adopted with 22 votes in favor, uh, 16 votes against and zero abstentions.

All right.

Moving on.

Uh, next uh resolution is agenda item 41.

This is RS 2025-1684.

Sponsored Greg Styles, Gamble, Alan Spain, Rutherford Druffle, Benedict Evans Nash, Swara Hancock, Wiener, Johnston Huffman, Ewing Voe, Bradford Benton, Evan Siegel, Eastlick, Coopin Gad, and Ellis.

This is a resolution honoring the 100th anniversary of the Grand Ole Opry E.

Go ahead, Mr.

Gregg.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Committee reports, please.

For the report of rules, confirmations, and public elections, Chair Cash.

We approve.

Four in favor, zero against zero not voting.

Okay, back to you, Mr.

Greg for a motion.

I would like to move for approval with a brief comment.

Oh, all right.

Go ahead, sir.

On Friday, November the 28th, we celebrated an incredible milestone.

The 100th birthday of the Grand O'Apry.

The Oprah began in November 1925 as the WSM Barn Dance.

The very first performer was a fiddle player, Uncle Jimmy Thompson.

In December of 1927, the show adopted the name we know today, the Grand O'Lopry, marking the beginning of a new era in American Entertainment.

The Opry stage has launched the careers of some of the greatest and most iconic artists.

John Ucash, Patsy Klein, Dolly Parton, Loretta Lynn, Elvis Presley, Garth Brooks, and Taylor Swift, and many more.

The Opry has never been just about country.

Artists from pop, rock, gospel, folk, and Americana all consider it an honor to stand on the iconic circle and perform.

Over the years, the Opry has welcomed U.S.

presidents, global dignitaries, and millions and millions of fans around the world.

Alongside the Fisk Jubilee singers, the Grand Ole Opry forms the very foundation of why Nashville is known across the globe as Music City.

As we celebrate 100 years of the Opry, we not only look back, we also look ahead at the next 100 years of storytelling and artistry from one of America's most iconic institutions.

With that, I would like to renew my motion and apply Rule 12.3.

All right.

Okay, there's a second for the uh motion uh to approve with rule 12.3 applied such that all voting in the affirmative will be listed as co-sponsors.

Uh we're on uh to discussion.

I see council member Koopin, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you to my colleague for bringing this resolution.

Um I always enjoy when I drive in and out of Nashville and I see home of the Grand Ole Opry on the sign.

It's a uh foundational establishment to our city.

Also it lived in District 19 at the Historic Ryman from 1943 to 1974.

Um so a real cultural anchor.

So as a council member over this district and also a former Grand Ole Opera security officer.

Um I would like to wish a happy hundred years to the Opry and here's to the next hundred years as well.

Thanks.

All right.

Little bit of coupon background history there.

Okay.

Um there's uh seeing uh no one seeking uh further discussion, uh, we're on a motion to approve with 12.3 applied.

Uh all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

Okay.

Happy birthday, Grand O'Apry.

Okay, now um we are on to section M of our agenda, bills on introduction and first reading.

By rule, all items on first reading shall be voted on at the same time unless requested otherwise by a primary sponsor or by two other members.

I believe there are quite a few items that need to be removed for a variety of reasons this evening.

And so uh do any items need to be removed from the collective vote?

If so, please enter the queue.

Um okay, Mr.

Koop, sir, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam President.

Item 46, please.

Okay, um item uh 46 will be removed um from the consolidated first reading vote.

Uh council member uh prep T, sir.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

If we could remove item 44, BL2025 1148.

Okay, um uh let's see, item 44 will be removed um from the consolidated first reading vote.

Um council member uh Druffle, you're recognized, sir.

I need uh item number 45, need to move to approval on first reading, but defer to the first meeting in March for public hearing.

Okay, at this juncture, we're just taken out of the collective vote and then we'll come back in order.

So um you'll be recognized again at that time, okay.

Um all right, agenda item 45 um 1149 has been removed from the collected vote.

Um is there anyone um Ms.

Tombs, uh Chair of Budget and Finance, are you wanting to address these uh uh removals by request of the Department of Procurement Um 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 that we're having procedural issues?

Um uh special council Darby, can you maybe speak to that or um uh I I see Mr.

Wilson going to tell Ms.

Tombs about that, but if you would, Miss There was a request to withdraw from procurement.

Okay, yes.

In fact, it's a wicked earlier.

Do I actually say withdraw?

Um so uh Miss Uh Toombs, the chair of budget and finance in conference with our staff and special counsel, and again at the request of the Department of Procurement, agenda items 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 um are all uh removed uh or rather withdrawn.

Okay.

Um all righty.

Are there any other uh members uh seeking uh to remove an item from the consolidated uh or rather collected vote?

Okay, seeing none, is there a motion for approval of all the items remaining on first consideration?

Okay, properly seconded without objection.

You have approved all items on first reading.

Uh or rather, other than the ones that were just removed, and thus we will go back in order.

Um first was agenda item 44, sponsor PEPT and GAD.

This is ordinance uh BL 2025-1148.

This is an ordinance amending chapters 17.04 and 17.32 of the Metro Code of Laws to revise and add regulations on signs uh within the zoning code.

Councilmember Prep T, you're recognized, sir.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

I'll move approval on first reading um and move up and subsequently move to defer second reading and the public hearing to the first meeting in March.

Okay.

Um all right.

There is a motion uh to approve on first reading and defer the second reading and public hearing to the first meeting in March.

It is properly seconded.

Is there any discussion on that motion?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

Um okay, that has passed its first reading, and we'll see that again at the first March meeting.

Next is agenda item 45, sponsored Ruffle and Ellis.

This is ordinance BL 2025-1149.

This is an ordinance amending chapter 17.2 of the Metro Code of Laws to require the Nashville Department of Transportation and Multimodal Infrastructure, aka N DOT to complete area transportation infrastructure analyses for certain site plans and uh rezonings.

Uh Councilmember Druffle, you're recognized.

Yeah, I think Chair.

I move for approval on first reading and defer for the public hearing first meeting in March.

Okay.

Um is there a second for that motion?

Okay, it's properly moved and seconded.

Um is there any discussion on the motion to pass on first and defer public hearing and second reading to the first meeting in March.

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no?

Any abstaining?

All right.

Um, we will see that again uh at the first March meeting.

Next uh is agenda item 46, uh ordinance BL 2025-1150, sponsors Coupen, Toombs, Horton, Johnston Hill, Huffman, and Styles.

This is an ordinance authorizing the Metro government's execution and delivery of a development agreement and ground lease agreement with the Tennessee Performing Arts Center Management Corporation, a campus operations and use agreement and other documents and agreements relating to the development of a performing arts facility on a portion of East Bank Stadium campus.

Um again, we are here on first reading still.

Um, Mr.

Coopin, you are recognized, sir.

Thank you, Madam President.

We'd like to move approval with a very brief comment.

All right, is there a second?

Okay, go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

I'll be incredibly brief.

Um just wanted to uh I know there's a colleague that has to abstain from this, but also wanted to say that we had a section 230 meeting um introducing the plan.

Um thank you to councilman uh cap and parker who attended and councilman Parker uh recorded it as a video link up for anyone who wants to uh view it.

Um thanks to the mayor's office and legal and TPAC and everybody who came to participate.

We also have an East Bank meeting um on the 11th at 3 p.m.

here um for folks that want to engage further.

Um just wanna let the public know about that.

And then I also have an amendment on the bill um that is brought forward by Metro Legal cleaning up some of the exhibits.

So I'd like to also move the amendment.

Um is there second on the motion to amend?

Okay, um, and you've already explained it there.

Um is there any discussion on the motion to amend with Mr.

Koopin's amendment?

Um okay, Mr.

Parker on the motion to amend.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Um yeah, as I was reviewing this, it did just look like cleanup.

I mean, it's primarily because some of the road construction area has like CSX right of way, colonial, and is going to be constructed with additional phases.

But is is the CSX kind of the main reason that we're like pulling this out?

That might be a question for the administration or for council members.

Mr.

Coupen, where would you like me to out?

Okay.

Um Mr.

Cross, uh representing uh Metro Legal, you are um recognized uh to address the question of council member Parker.

Uh thank you.

I'm Tom Cross from the legal department.

CSX is uh not the reason why the amendments the exhibits need to be amended.

Do you seek additional clarification, Mr.

Parker?

Thank you.

So it could you explain a couple of the road sections were not as clear as they are in the exhibits that are substituted.

And also the road network layout is a little clearer in the exhibits that are part of the amendment.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

So what I heard is it is housekeeping for clarity um related to the road okay.

That's good.

Um is there any further uh discussion um on this motion to amend?

Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

Okay.

Ums uh Evan Siegel, Mr.

Clerk, uh needs to be recorded as uh abstention on the motion to amend.

Um and uh Mr.

Koop, if you'd renew your motion.

Thank you.

Move approval as amended.

Okay, properly seconded.

Any discussion on that?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no we've we've got a no.

Okay.

Um any other no's there's just two no's here.

Okay.

Um this is first reading, you know, majority prevails here.

So um, and then uh abstention, um, Ms.

Evan Siegel.

Um, so there was a no from Mr.

Bradford and Ms.

Welsh and an abstention uh from uh Ms.

Evan Siegel and also an abstention um from Ms.

Porterfield, Mr.

Clerk.

Okay.

Uh this has passed its uh first of three readings uh as amended.

All right.

Um next.

Okay, that concludes our first reading items.

Um next, we are on bills on second reading um that were not on our consent agenda.

And the first among those is agenda item 85 ordinance BL 2025-1113 sponsors Koopin Cash, Alan Huffman Hill and Styles.

This is an ordinance amending Title II of the Metro Code of Laws authorizing the creation of a midtown central business improvement district and appointing a corporation to act as an advisory board to the district with the necessary powers and authority to carry out the purposes and intent of the district.

Uh Councilmember Koopin, you are recognized, sir.

Thank you, Madam President.

Committee reports, please.

All right, for the report of the budget and finance committee, Chair Times.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor, budget and finance voted to recommend approval of the amendment.

10 in favor, zero against, zero not voting, and recommend an approval of the bill as amended.

10 in favor, zero against zero not voting.

All right.

Um Mr.

Koop for a motion.

Thank you, Madam President.

I'd like to move approval with a brief comment.

Is there second?

Okay, go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Well, appreciate the uh robust uh discussion in committee yesterday and the consideration of the steering committee and the council and everyone who's worked so hard on this.

Um as y'all know that with state law, there is a public hearing rule, so it has to be more than 30 in less than 45 days from the initial resolution.

So the public hearing and third reading will be on December 16th.

Um there's no opportunity to defer or maneuver move it.

Um, however, it is amendable on third reading if they're considered a continued desires for any amendments.

Um this bid is for beautification, cleaning, safety, and neighborhood improvement.

Um, you'll find on your desk a booklet put together by the wonderful Haley Levy because you do not want a booklet that I put together.

It would not look good.

Um, but it does talk a little bit more about the the program and the desire.

Um I've heard from colleagues, I've heard from Metro Community Relations Commission and others' concerns, um, especially about the importance of a bid aligning with the priorities of the metro government that establishes it.

Um, and to that end, I worked on an amendment that made a few changes, um, a few among them um during the there's a section about traffic and parking.

I added a line that says that that must be done um in alignment with the stated multimodal goals of the metro government.

Um I've reinstated the council confirmation of board members, so all board members of the bid board uh will come before this body for approval.

Um there's quarterly reporting to public health and safety and to budget committee.

There's annual approvals, um, and obviously the one of the biggest conversations has been around public safety.

Um, and while that's an important piece of this bid, there uh you know, we had a person wielding a knife running after children a couple weeks ago in that area.

Um, we want to make sure that that aligns with the Metro government.

And so my amendment um would limit it to uh MPD or Vanderbilt PD or anyone commissioned by MNPD, um, any private security company actively doing business with the Metro government.

So, for example, we go uses um Archangel Security at their we go transit centers um or any additional security um as approved by this body.

Um, so that limits it to effectively companies or entities that are kind of blessed by the metro government in some capacity.

Um I'm committed to continuing to work on this.

I want this to be a bid that everybody can get behind and support.

Um, and so really appreciate everyone that's engaged and look forward to continuing to work on it.

Um, so I'd like to move the aforementioned amendment, please.

All right, is there a second on the motion to amend?

Okay.

Um is there any discussion on the motion to amend?

Miss Ellis, I saw you click in earlier.

Do you want to wait to the um bill is amended?

Okay.

Um, so we are on um a motion uh to amend uh with Mr.

Koop's amendment as you heard him describe it.

Uh council member Bradford on the motion to amend.

Okay, go ahead, sir.

Thank you, madam president.

So I appreciate um council member coopens for bringing this amendment forward in the previous readings of this bill.

I was apprehensive, apprehensive of it, voted against it on the last reading because of what we've heard from the residents about creating these C bids where there's really no oversight by the council, that they're basically taking tax dollars that they are self-generating and using it how they want.

And so I appreciate this amendment because it does provide some oversight.

It requires all the board members of these of this bid to be council approved, and it requires that any public safety be already approved by Metro, be on an approved Metro vendor.

So I appreciate these efforts to make this C bid um more in line with what our public is telling us, gives us the oversight, and hopefully, as we go forward creating new C bids, we use this uh um framework and that we look at ways to implement this framework on existing state bids.

Thank you.

All right.

Um Ms.

Evan Siegel on the motion to amend.

Go ahead.

Yep.

Um thank you.

Um I just wanted to say I I I really appreciate my colleague bringing this amendment.

Um we've had a lot of discussion over the past several months in this body um around what it means to be a bid, what different security forces mean.

One of my ongoing concerns with this bid as all bits is that if it's anybody who's deputized, then you could have somebody who's maybe not familiar with urban policing and the needs of the community and the unique needs of our community um come in and try to enforce rules that we as a community don't support.

Um, I think there's probably still a little cleanup left.

I think my colleague, my understanding is it's still open to conversations around that cleanup.

So I feel good about where this is today and passing it on second with the caveat that further cleanup on this bill because it is bid can be done on third.

Okay.

Um is there any further discussion specifically on the motion to amend?

Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

Any voting no?

Any abstaining?

All right, back to you if you would renew your motion, please, sir.

Thank you.

Move approval as amended.

Okay.

Um now we're on to discussion of uh the uh ordinance as amended.

Um, Miss Ellis, do you seek to be recognized?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

That's I was trying to go back and pull up because I was pleased to come in and see council member Coupens better half present the information uh about the C bid.

But the concern that I still have, and uh forgive me, I have a full-time job, so I wasn't able to come to the subcommittee meetings.

Uh, was it ever discussed what um revenues from the private garage uh currently in the downtown C bid had been collected by Metro?

And if there has been a substantial amount, why are we then uh deferring to allow future revenues from a private garage to be collected by a C bid.

All right.

Um I'll put that to Mr.

Koopin to respond.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Madam President.

Can I just clarify with my colleagues the question that the revenue collected by the garage and and a question about revenue collected by a garage by this new bid, or I understand that the thematic concerns and share those concerns, but just kind of curious what that specific question is, so I can best answer.

Right.

So if you could just clarify because we want to be specifically on this bid, I can understand maybe the larger context about parking garage revenue.

So the question, so and and that was the point is that it as it's currently written, it's a bit vague to include um other revenues in including but not limited to privately owned garages.

And it wasn't explicitly stated if you know the revenue, how much that was and if it was included in the thing was the 15 million that was being proposed.

And and that was previously, you know, something that I had asked in a previous committee, and I think finance was supposed to pull the numbers to see, you know, in the previous reports that we were supposed to have been given about monies collected from the bids, and it never was collected, nor was it in the presentation that he had presented.

Okay.

Um I'm just gonna allow you, Mr.

Koopin, to respond in a way that is specific to this bid, honors sort of the context questions there, and then we may need um uh Ms.

Ellis to get you some follow-up from the special counsel separate from the maybe I can simplify it.

I just want to make sure that in this current bid, we're not forfeiting future potential revenues from a metro-owned parking garage to the board of this uh C bid to decide how that money's spent.

Okay, of the proposed M bid.

Okay.

Um thank you, thank you, Madam President, and apologies to my colleague.

I actually um neglected to mention that that was one of the items that I did address in the amendment by removing that section that says including but not limited to Metropolitan Government Parking Garages.

Um, this entity does not seek to build, manage, or operate any parking garages, so that is removed from that section um in response to that that question and concern.

Um I you know, if there are further questions on revenue that you know, happy to happy to chase them down.

I know that the finance and legal department were working on um opinions on prior prior dollars and things with the downtown C bid, but this one I did I did remove the language.

Okay, um that uh language has been uh removed uh from the amendment uh that is on the bill.

Um what is before us is um a motion uh to approve on the second of uh three readings um as amended.

Is there any further discussion?

Okay, seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no uh any abstaining?

Okay, all right.

Um this passes its second of three readings um because it just requires a majority at this juncture.

We had a few no's, but the prepondering uh uh vote is uh in favor.

So on we go.

Um next is agenda item 86 ordinance BL 2025-1114.

Uh sponsors Styles, Evans, Ellis, and Webb.

This is an ordinance amending title three of the Metro Code of Laws to require departments, boards, and commissions of the Metro government to conduct annual employee surveys.

Uh Council Member Stiles, you are recognized.

Thank you very much, Vice Mayor Committee reports, please.

For the report of the government operations and regulations committee, Chair Hill, go ahead, ma'am.

Uh thank you, ma'am, vice mayor.

We recommended uh deferral to the first meeting in February, uh, three February 26, eight in favor, zero against zero night voting.

Okay, um deferral to the first meeting in February.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, um that is the report.

Um, and so it's back to you, um uh Ms.

Styles for a motion to get the bill before us.

Yes.

Uh Vice Mayor, yes, ma'am.

Uh the bill is deferred actually to the second meeting in February.

Okay.

Are you concurring with that, Chair Hill?

Is that correct?

It's the second meeting.

Okay, hang on.

Wait, wait, okay.

So the sponsor has asked for clarification on the report of the committee.

Um, I'm gonna direct that clarification to uh special counsel Darby or a member of our team that was in that committee, um, special counsel.

Okay, I I must have misunderstood in the meeting because I asked if it was being deferred to February 3rd, and there was a yes.

So I wrote that in my notes, um, and then confirmed with chair.

Uh, but if it is the 17th, then that's uh and and uh Ms.

Harrell confirmed that she heard the 17th.

So okay.

All right, so we have a member of our legal services that was in the room and does confirm um she heard uh February 17th.

Uh Chair, do you concur to that effect?

Committee chair?

Okay, Chair Hill concurs.

Okay.

So now the report of the committee is a recommend uh recommendation uh for uh deferral to the second meeting in February.

Okay.

Um all right, it's back to you, Ms.

Styles.

Uh thank you very much.

If I could we move for approval with a brief comment or deferral.

Sorry, deferral, sorry.

Um okay, you you do want to move deferral?

Yes.

Um absolutely so it's not your intent to put the amendment on at this time.

You want to wait?

You know what?

Second that I'll put the amendment on and then defer it.

Okay.

Sorry, um right.

Um, so I'm gonna need you to move approval.

Okay, so that we can get the amendment on, and then you can um change your motion.

Okay.

Okay.

Um is there a second um for the motion to approve for the purposes of amending the bill?

Okay.

All right, it's properly before us, uh, Ms.

Styles.

Uh, if you want to uh move your amendment at this time, um uh you can make a motion to amend.

Uh yes, I would like to make motion with it.

May I uh give a brief of course yeah brief comment?

Uh so I amended this bill to change the date in terms of the time frame that staff would be able to submit the surveys from uh October to March 15th through the 31st that actually coincides with one of the departments that does an annual survey and is doing well, so it seemed like that would be a good move to not be disruptive.

That's pretty much the only change.

Okay.

Um uh so we're on a motion uh to amend uh with Ms.

Styles' um amendment as just explained.

Is there any discussion on the motion to amend?

Seeing none, all in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

Any voting no?

Any abstaining?

All right, so Ms.

Styles, I'm gonna go back to you and you're gonna need to uh revise and amend your motion and um get the deferral properly before us instead.

Go ahead, sponsor.

Thank you very much.

I would like to move for a deferral until February 17th.

Okay, the second as amended.

Yep, the second uh meeting uh in February.

Um so there is a motion uh to um defer um to the second meeting in February uh as amended.

Um is there any further discussion?

Oh, uh go ahead, Miss Styles.

Thank you.

So one of the reasons that we're deferring this is so uh council member webb had asked to get some information from our HR department in order to figure out exactly what's happening in our various departments.

Departments I've spoken to have said that they don't have a process of getting employee feedback.

So I want to give council member webb time to get that information so we can have a fair conversation on the floor.

All right.

Um you've heard the explanation for the motion to defer um as amended to the second meeting in February.

Is there any further discussion um on the motion to defer?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no?

Any abstaining?

Okay.

Uh this is deferred to the second meeting in February.

All right.

Um next is agenda item 87 ordinance BL 2025-1115 sponsors Vaux and Welsh.

This is an ordinance amending chapter 16.04 and 16.24 of the Metro Code of Laws to require a fence permit for permanent fences to be constructed within Nashville and Davidson County.

Councilmember Vowe, you're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Committee reports, please.

All right, for the report of government operations and regulations, uh Chair Hill.

Thank you, Minute Vice Mayor.

Uh, we couldn't recommend approval.

Three in favor, but three against and two not voting.

All right.

So three in favor.

Three against and then two that didn't vote.

Two not voting.

Okay.

Um understood.

Uh it's back to you.

Um, Ms.

Vaux with that uh committee report in.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, I'd like to move for a one meeting deferral uh with a brief comment.

Okay.

Um there is a motion to defer uh one meeting.

Is there a second?

Okay, go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you so much, Vice Mayor.

Um, right now we have a lot of fence issues throughout the county, and um, you know, it's causing a very heavy burden on the BZA, and so I'm trying to work on a proactive approach um to improve the process.

Um, but I know during the committee meeting there is a lot of um feedback.

And so I think that um since this is not amendable on third, I'd like to take time to get feedback from colleagues so that um it can be the best bill that it can.

So um I urge anyone who has comments or feedback, please let me know so that uh we can work on that, and uh we'll bring it back to the next meeting.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um Mr.

Cash, you're recognized on the motion to defer.

Thanks.

Uh I uh am supportive of this bill, and I I want it to work.

I did I've had like in the last two months five cases about fence violations before the BZA.

Like we have a lot of fences that are not compliant.

This would grandfather sum uh existing unless there's a visibility issue.

But like the BZA we we need to have more oversight over this um on the front end rather than on the back end.

Um and I'm thankful that uh council member bow is working on this, and like she said, like let's talk through, let's talk through this and and take this this time this two these two weeks to figure out how we can make it better.

Thanks.

All righty.

Um uh we're on a motion to defer one meeting.

Is there any further discussion?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining?

All right.

Um uh this will be on its uh second reading again um at uh the second meeting, December 16th of this month.

Okay.

All right.

Um yes, sir.

Go ahead.

Since it didn't get recommended through committee, it actually I didn't think it passed.

I thought it failed at 3-3.

Does it go back to committee?

Do we start over or does it just go back to the floor?

Um special counsel.

Um this is uh second reading.

Um, one meeting deferral, if you would clarify, please, ma'am.

It does not go back to committee because the committee has taken action to not recommend approval.

So it just goes to a vote next time, no re-evaluation in committee.

Is there a way to get it to go back to committee so that we can talk about it?

I feel like that's important.

Otherwise, we're just gonna vote on the same thing without really being able to analyze it again.

And this had a lot of flaws.

This is the second time this bill's come up almost identically this year.

It didn't pass the first time, and we're looking at it again without being able to look at it again in committee.

So I feel like there's some need to have the committee go back and and talk, especially since it didn't pass in the first place.

If it didn't pass us, why does it go past this in the second?

All right.

So this um I'm gonna take this as a point of kind of parliamentary inquiry relative to the re uh referral to committee um subsequent to the uh the motion of the sponsor and the vote.

Um so uh special counsel, is there any way for Mr.

Eastlick to um address this concern at this juncture um so that it could uh go back to committee?

Can you speak to that from a parliamentary standpoint, please?

The the motion to defer one meeting has already been approved.

So the time to make to request a re-referral was during discussion on the deferral motion.

That did not happen, so there's no re-referral back to committee along with the uh deferral motion at this time.

You could move to rescind the deferral motion, I believe, and uh potentially vote again on the deferral motion, the re-referral.

Okay, and if you will talk us through that um uh special uh counsel, I'll I'll just see first with no encouragement here if that is uh the uh desire of Mr.

Eastlick.

That is my desire.

I would like to rescind that vote and send it back to committee.

Okay.

Um so uh there is a motion uh to rescind um the uh motion to defer.

Um special counsel, can you talk us through what that requires as to second or otherwise or what's needed?

Requires 27 votes.

Okay.

Um so um does it require a second?

I I think any motion requires a second, so yes.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Um, okay.

So there is a motion and a second um a point of order.

Um okay, Ms.

Bo, go ahead.

Uh Vice Mayor, uh, thank you so much.

Um, as a lead sponsor, I do not support that.

So um do I need to make a specific motion or um uh you can ask the special counsel to advise you what is presently before us is a motion uh to rescind the previous action, which was a just a simple deferral motion.

Okay, it is properly seconded.

It requires 27 votes.

Um is there any debate um Ms.

Darby on a motion to rescind?

Yes.

Okay.

So we are on debate of the motion to rescind.

You have been recognized for a point of order, but in the context of that debate, I hear you saying as sponsor that you do not support this motion to rescind.

Um I will further acknowledge you if you want to speak to why you don't uh support that.

Okay.

Um go ahead.

All right.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Um, yes, it's been through the committee, and I I feel like um just like I said before, I'll be working with other colleagues through council connect.

We can talk through certain issues or improvements um on the legislation.

And I don't think that it's um necessary to go back um to committee um for um the purpose that my colleague um is uh wanting.

Okay, um, Mr.

Eastlick, I'm gonna give you a little bit more time in support of the motion uh to rescind.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Three out of eight people on the committee supported this.

It's the same bill that we've passed before, nothing really different.

There is a need for something better, but unless we're gonna survey and actually give real instruction to the people that are putting up fences, and we take the money and sign off, then we're putting ourselves in a in a responsible position on that bill or on that fence.

So if we're gonna do this, what meeting's not gonna fix it?

We either need to get rid of it or put it back to committee where we can look at it and talk about it again and maybe find ways to improve uh to improve it.

But as it is coming back without going through committee and looking through or going through any changes, it's not really what we need to do.

And again, I don't think it should go through since it only had three out of eight committee members voting for it.

All right, so um you are as I understand it.

You've asked for the motion to rescind for the purpose of a subsequent deferral motion by the sponsor that includes a re-referral.

Correct.

Okay, so that is um all we're discussing at this time is the motion to rescind, at which point if that were to prevail, I am gonna go back to the sponsor, and she is gonna reinitiate uh whatever motion she chooses.

Okay.

So the uh the uh re-referral to committee is not a part of the motion to rescind.

Effectively, what the motion to rescind does, it just takes us one step back, colleagues.

Okay, and then we were back on the bill with the sponsor acknowledged, and we will proceed at that time.

The motion to rescind, special counsel says uh takes 27 votes, and so in an abundance of caution.

Um, but we have debate on the motion to rescind at all.

Okay.

Um, so uh Ms.

Benedict, uh, do you seek to be recognized on the motion to rescind?

Go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you, madam vice mayor.

I would like to yield my time to council member Porterfield.

Okay.

Um uh councilmember Porterfield, you're recognized.

Uh thank you, Vice Mayor.

We have processes in place in which if we want to improve legislation, we can do that.

Um, this is I believe we just voted was a for deferral for a woman deferral.

So during that period of time, there are lots of things that could be done.

People can have community meetings, they can engage your community.

We can work through council connect.

We can also offer things called amendments to legislation to make them better.

So if there is a desire to make a legislation better, we can actually do that through the processes that we already have.

We don't have to rescind legislation that we already voted on because there was no recommendation at that time to bring it back to committee.

So I'm going to be voting against it respectfully and supporting the lee sponsor.

All right.

Uh council member Parker, do you seek to be recognized on the motion to rescind?

Um go ahead, sir.

Previous question.

Okay.

Um there is nobody else in the queue, sir.

So we can move to the vote on the motion to rescind.

Okay.

So um Ms.

Benedict seated her time.

You were acknowledged.

There's nobody else in the queue.

So we're gonna move to the vote on the motion to rescind.

Again, what is happening at this juncture is we're just taking one step back.

The sponsor will then be acknowledged.

She can again move her deferral as she chooses.

We can debate in that regard.

She can acknowledge the request of her colleague to re-refer if she so chooses.

So the vote is for like just one step back.

Um, it requires 27, so an abundance of caution.

Uh, Mr.

Clerk, if you would please load the vote um to rescind uh the previous action.

All votes are in.

Mr.

Clerk, please show the vote.

Okay, the motion to rescind the previous action fails with 11 votes in favor, 24 against, and two abstentions.

Okay.

This required 27 votes.

So uh the motion to defer one meetings uh for uh Ms.

Vows ordinance one one one five stands and we move forward through the agenda.

Okay.

Um now we are on uh bills on third reading.

Okay.

Um first among those uh is agenda item 96 uh ordinance BL 2025-1005 sponsors Gamble, Parker, and Benedict.

This is an ordinance to amend Title 17, the Metro Code of Laws, the zoning ordinance of the Metro government relative to the creation of two new zoning districts called uh residential neighborhood RN and Residential Limited.

Uh and with that, um I will recognize the primary sponsor, uh Ms.

Gamble.

You are recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh oh, we don't have committee reports.

We have several amendments on this bill, and I have a substitute, so I would like to move the substitute.

Okay.

Um Ms.

Gamble, you you will still need to request the committee reports first, and then I will come back to you at which point you can uh move approval and then get the substitute before us.

Thank you.

We'll come to you first.

Um as well at that time, uh Ms.

Gamble in your uh discussion time as primary sponsor.

Um you can move that substitute, but you can also move uh subsequent uh friendly amendments if you so choose within your time of discussion.

Okay.

Okay, so I'd like to the committee reports.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, uh Rollin Horton, uh planning zoning chair, sir.

You're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Uh Planning and Zoning considered bill 2025 1005.

So it's a substitute and a number of amendments.

Um I'll take the substitute amendments uh one at a time.

Uh we voted uh in favor of the substitute substitute, 12 in favor, zero against zero not voting.

Uh we voted uh against approval for amendment number one, uh zero in favor, eleven against zero not voting.

Uh for amendment two, the sponsor indicated uh an intent to withdraw and the committee did not consider the amendment or make a recommendation on the amendment.

For amendment three, uh the committee uh did not recommend approval.

Uh zero in favor, ten against zero not voting.

Uh for amendment four, the council recommended approval of the committee recommended approval, 12 in favor, zero against zero not voting.

Uh for amendment five, the committee did not make a positive recommendation with six in favor, six against, and zero not voting.

For amendment six, uh the committee recommended approval, twelve in favor, zero against, zero not voting.

Uh and for amendment seven, the committee voted in favor, recommended approval, twelve in favor, zero against zero not voting.

And for the bill overall as substituted and amended by the positive recommended amendments.

Uh we voted in favor, twelve in favor, zero against zero not voting.

All right.

Thank you for that uh lengthy committee report.

Um, and it's back to you, Ms.

Gamble.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I'd like to move the proposed substitute.

Okay, if you'd move approval first, please, ma'am.

Just move for approval.

Okay, is there a second?

Okay, and then I hear you saying you want to move the substitute.

Um is there a second for the motion to substitute?

Okay.

Uh so we're on uh discussion of the motion to substitute.

Do you want to explain the substitute?

Thank you.

Yes, this substitute has some um cleanup issues in it.

Um more clarification on the land use table, and if I'll ask the planning table to be more specific on those changes.

Right.

Um, Ms.

Milligan, you're recognized uh for an explanation of the substitute at the request of the sponsor.

Go ahead.

Sure.

This substitute uh brings the ordinance into compliance with the planning commission recommendation and also makes some housekeeping cleanups uh that planning worked with the council on to get it just into the right format to incorporate into the zoning code.

Thank you.

All righty.

Um okay.

Anything else you'd like to share?

That's all.

Um all right.

So there um is a motion to substitute um uh that is before us.

Is there any discussion on the motion to substitute on the substitute?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or abstaining.

Okay.

Um so we are back to you to renew your motion uh to approve is substituted.

I'd like to uh move to approve as substituted.

Okay.

Um anything else you would like to do at this time.

Uh I'll I will wait until we get the other amendments on before speaking on the bill as a whole.

All right, okay.

So we are on to discussion um uh colleagues on uh the motion to substitute um in the context of the uh discussion.

Um uh members may uh make motions to amend.

Um and so uh we are on to discussion.

Ms.

Allen, you are recognized.

Thank you, madam chair.

I guess we don't have to do these in order.

So I'm no ma'am, we don't have to do them like amendment.

Excellent.

I would like to start with amendment number five, which simply defers the effective date of um when this would be applied to April 1, 2026, 2026, excuse me.

Um this is a request of the planning staff so that they would be able, as we spoke about earlier, to go through the community character manual and um add narrative that explains where each of these subdistricts would be appropriate.

Um this is a follow-up uh to the um to the request earlier about transparency, and they have said that April 1 would give them time to do that to have that information in place so that it would be uh officially laid out as a guideline for the planning commission on if anyone did bring something before whether it was appropriate um and consistent with policy as zoning changes begin to be complicated contemplated down the road.

So I would move this amendment, which simply um delays the effective date to April 1.

All right.

Uh here a second.

So there is a motion uh to amend with amendment five um by Ms.

Allen and described by her properly seconded, and so we are on to discussion on the motion to amend with amendment five.

Mr.

Druffel, are you seeking to be recognized?

Uh yes, Chair, I I rise in support.

Uh the conversation we had earlier with uh councilady Johnson's uh recommendation uh comes back in terms of transparency and the ability.

This this supports that uh without looking like we're rushing through this.

Uh so I I really think it's a good thing to uh to let our folks know uh we're taking our time and and there's some of the things that uh some of the amendments later that I think uh we can slow down on and then uh reconcile.

Thank you.

All right.

Um again uh we continue discussion with the motion to amend with amendment five.

Mr.

Horton, uh planning and zoning chair, you're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

Just to reiterate very briefly, this is one that the committee was um divided on.

We voted six in favor, six against uh zero nine voting.

I know it's hard to keep all of the recommendations straight.

Um I rise in opposition to this one.

Um delaying the effective date of this of these two new zoning districts doesn't stop um rezonings from happening.

I think our district, like many others, are receive a lot of rezoning requests, and when those come in, a lot of times we're forced to rely on a pinky promise by the developer that they'll adhere to certain design standards when they re use things like RM15 or RM20 or RM40, uh, but we have no real enforcement mechanism to do so.

Um these two new zoning districts do provide that enforcement mechanism granted if these are enforced before the community character manual is updated, it forces the planning commission to consider these on an ad hoc basis um in the interim, but that's not a good enough reason for taking these tools um out of the hands of district council members who are free to consider that um with their community um rather than relying instead on stop par zoning districts like RM20 or RM40 without these design standards.

Uh so I think it's important that we give district level council members the option but not the obligation to use these if they'd like to.

So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Thank you.

All right.

Um uh Ms.

Gamble, do you seek to be recognized on amendment five?

Go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

I rise in support of this amendment five.

I think this is a good measure to uh to show transparency and try to improve trust in the community with these zoning bills, and also I think allowing time for the planning staff to update the character manual, update the uh policies would help in making any decisions on these bills with the planning commission because the planning commission uh views and makes rulings based on policy, and if we don't have the policies updated once it if this uh new zoning district is is approved, it would make it a little confusing and difficult.

So I think having that extra time uh to allow the planning commission to update the maps, update the uh policy manual before actually applying these bills is a responsible and prudent thing to do, and I think it's more meaningful than the earlier resolution that we talked about.

So I'm in full support of this uh amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Gamble sponsor.

Um uh is there any further discussion on the motion to amend with amendment five?

Uh council member Benedict, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor.

So um I uh I want the community, I want the CCM to be updated before we implement these on the one hand, and so the delay um sounds like a good idea, but I'm concerned that if if an area of the district I represent wants to pursue this change, and then I have to tell them, well, no, we need to actually wait on that.

We can't do anything about that.

Well, April 1st is a good bit off.

So um, you know, the first quarter of next year, um three months is a long time to uh wait for something like this.

So um I just I rise in opposition to this, and I do think that um a delay here isn't necessary.

I think that as um the chair of the committee said, if one of these does come up, the planning department can look at the character and for that you know, ad hoc situation.

So anyway, that's what I'm at.

Thanks.

All right.

Is there any uh further discussion on the motion to amend with amendment five?

Councilmember Parker, you're recognized.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

So I uh also rise in opposition to this amendment.

Um, I I feel like we're I know that these are not in the zoning table today, but I feel like we're in some ways treating them like they're some alien species.

Um we're gonna be able to look at the parameters of these zoning districts.

We're gonna be able to see, you know, how many units would be appropriate for a given application.

The planning staff are gonna be able to use their expertise to say, well, if RM15-A is appropriate here, then maybe RN1 would be appropriate as well.

It's you know, we'd rather have all the guidance baked in, but the staff are super capable of doing that.

Again, these are not like some alien thing that's coming down.

These are multifamily zoning districts that have kind of these stringent regulations on use and form.

Um they're they're kind of like what we a lot of us end up doing with SPs for for smaller infill developments.

So I don't see the need for the delay.

Um, as one of the council members that that does do a good bit of infill development in the district.

I don't see the need for the delay.

Thank you.

All right.

Um we continue discussion on uh the motion to amend with amendment five.

Do you seek to be recognized on the amendment, Ms.

Johnson?

Okay, you're recognized.

Um I remember in our discussion yesterday about this, we uh we talked about the timing of the delay, and I just want to make sure that I remember correctly that planning had said when we talked about well, what about March or February in order to not delay that too much?

And it was, I think said that April was still tight for you guys, but you felt like you could get it done, but anything before that was really uncomfortable and you didn't like.

Is that correct?

Um you need to address I'm sorry.

Me, is then that's um I'm happy to put that to Ms.

Milligan um on behalf of the planning department.

Um you're recognized.

Sure.

So this is something that would go to the planning commission and recognizing that the planning commission, like you all sort of have only one meeting in January, um, and that we're also entering into holiday season, which often makes um public processes where we want to get feedback a little bit more challenging.

Um April felt like enough time, but that it would still be a bit tight.

Yes.

Perfect.

Okay.

So my question is if when we have a rezone that goes to the planning commission and the planning commission is using current policy with the community character manual, Nashville next, yada yada, in order to make their recommendations of approval or disapproval, and yet that has not been updated yet because you're saying that you need until April to do that.

What is the commission going to do if there's a rezone that is applied for, yet all of these updates have not been done?

How are they going to make a recommendation anyway?

Ms.

Milliken, you're recognized.

Sure.

So we would look to uh zoning districts that we currently have that have similar um heights or bulk standards.

Um they are not as detailed as what is proposed in the RN and the RL, obviously, but we would look to those to see what the community character manual um says about them or where it supports them.

Um it would just take um likely more analysis.

Um we would of course all zoning applications we really dig into and um analyze for policy and infrastructure um and context.

And so we would do that same process um looking at the existing zoning districts and just um finding sort of like but not the same districts.

Is it fair to say that before you are completing before you have completed the process of updating CCM, all of the things that you're planning on doing, which you're saying you need until April too to do, that the commission would be somewhat handicapped in making these decisions because they don't have an updated policy manual.

Is that fair to say?

Ms.

Milligan.

I don't I wouldn't necessarily I may not characterize it that way.

I would just say that the staff would have to do some more some additional work on the front end for any requests to translate if you would.

So it would be better to defer this, the implementation until after you have had time to update the cut the policy manual, correct?

Well I I yeah, we're we're done.

Okay.

Um next um on uh the motion to amend on amendment five.

So next um on uh the motion to amend on amendment five.

Is there any further discussion on that?

Okay.

Seeing none, um, we will move uh to the vote on um amendment five.

Um we will try this.

I don't I don't even want to try this by voice.

Um uh Mr.

Clerk, uh, if you just open the machine for the motion to amend with amendment five, please, sir.

All votes are in, Mr.

Clerk.

Please show the vote.

All right.

Um the motion to amend with amendment five uh has passed with 26 votes in favor and 10 against.

All right.

Um so uh Ms.

Gamble, I'm gonna go back to you.

If you would please renew uh your motion to approve as substituted and amended with amendment five.

I'd like to move for approval as substituted and with amendment five.

Okay.

Okay, all right.

Uh discussion.

Discussion uh continues.

Um uh uh okay.

Um uh we are open uh to discussion as colleagues will recall.

A motion to amend is a proper motion in the midst of discussion.

Um next in the queue is uh Ms.

Allen, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam President.

This is a very small amendment that that is is simply um uh a nod towards the requ the request that I had made in an earlier amendment, which I have withdrawn.

Ms.

Allen, if you would just state first motion to amend with which amendment and then go ahead and describe it after that.

I would like to move amendment four with a brief explanation.

Okay, is there a second for the motion to amend with amendment four?

Okay.

Um this amendment simply takes uh adds a recital that simply acknowledges that we we understand um the importance of preserving existing neighborhood character, and it simply says that the goal of this is not to wipe out neighborhoods, it's just a statement that acknowledges some of the concerns that we've heard.

I feel it's important to acknowledge those concerns.

And so um I would I would just like to put that statement in that says we are trying to do this in a way that respects the character of the neighborhood.

Okay, um, there is a motion to amend uh with amendment four.

I will remind that that uh uh got a recommendation of approval 12 and oh in um committee, and I believe it's some recitals.

Is that correct?

Okay.

Um all right.

Um so we're on a uh motion to amend with amendment four properly seconded, and we're on to discussion.

Um Ms.

Ewing, do you seek to be recognized for the purposes of the motion to amend with amendment four?

I'm in the no, I'm in the queue to amendment.

Okay, if you would get out of the queue, because we are on the motion to amend with amendment four.

Mr.

Druffle, do you seek to be recognized?

Nope.

Um, Mr.

Koopin on amendment four.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I just want to check.

Was this amended in committee we talked about removing the word unobtrusive?

Was this amended?

Was the amendment amended?

I can answer that.

No, the amendment was not amended in committee.

Is that do you do you want to respond to that, Ms.

Allen?

Particularly, um, if the concern was about the word unobtrusive.

Oops, I'm sorry, ma'am.

Go ahead.

If I may.

Um, yes, in committee, we did not have it as a file, so we voted on it without the word unobtrusive.

I did make the offer to remove that word.

I do have a late filed amendment with that word removed.

If there is the will of the body to use that one instead of this one, then I will withdraw this one and offer the late filed amendment if we have to suspend the rules to do that.

So I just wanted to see if we could keep it simple, but if we need to move it, do it more complicated.

I have that lined up as well.

Okay.

So um, Mr.

Koopin, the answer to your question is the amendment that is before us for purposes of discussion retains the word unobtrusive.

There is a late filed amendment that extracts that word solely.

Is that the nature of that?

But it was late filed and thus would require a suspension of the rules to take it up.

That you can do that at this time if you so choose.

Thank you.

So uh I guess point of inquiry if would the sponsor have to do that?

Would I be able to do that?

How would that what mechanism would bring the late file before us instead of this amendment?

Um any member can offer uh an amendment um that is in uh our agenda and any member can move to suspend the rules for that purpose.

So I guess I'll go give the context real quick.

I know it sounds uh, you know, it's it's very specific on a specific word.

Um I appreciated the sponsor being of being willing to to remove it.

My concern was that it was getting very prescriptive in the recital.

Um things you know when saying things like unobtrusive, what might be unobtrusive to me might be obtrusive to somebody else.

So you're starting to get into kind of personal characterization.

So I appreciated the word coming out.

Um so I'd appreciate if the sponsor would consider okay um, you know, all right.

So I will go back uh to Ms.

Allen if she wants to withdraw or amend her motion relative to the late file.

Um go ahead, Ms.

Allen.

Thank you.

With apologies for just not getting organized enough to do that.

I apologize.

Um I will ask for a point of point of procedure if it is more appropriate to withdraw this one and to um move the late file, ask for a suspension rules and move the late file.

Is that the appropriate thing to do?

Special counsel Darby, would she just simply um withdraw her motion?

Yeah, you would withdraw your motion and then make a motion to uh suspend the rules to do that on one sort of food.

You may okay, all right.

I withdraw my motion.

Yep.

Okay, and um I move late filed amendment, which is looks very much like amendment number four if people want to see that.

Okay, is there any objection to the suspension of the rules?

Seeing no objection, the rules are suspended for purposes of taking up this late filed amendment.

At this time, you may offer the amendment.

Great.

Thank you for your indulgence.

I would like to move the late filed amendment.

All right.

Um it's properly moved and seconded.

And I think as you have previously described, the simple difference there is the uh removal of the word unobtrusive.

Okay.

Um that was the late filed amendment of Ms.

Allen.

Um is there any further discussion on that late filed amendment?

Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye.

Any voting no or uh abstaining?

Okay.

All right.

Where we are is um we are on um if Ms.

Gamble chooses to renew this motion, um I'm gonna just state it, Ms.

Gamble, because we're gonna have a lot of this.

So I think what I would suggest is I'm just gonna restate it for clarity.

And if you would just say so moved, then we will kind of keep going.

Okay.

So where we are now is we are on a motion to approve as substituted and amended uh with amendment five of Ms.

Allen and the late filed amendment of Ms.

Allen that was very similar to amendment four, but isn't amendment four.

Um I wish we could just call it like four B or something, but let's just kind of think of it that way.

Um do you wish to renew that motion?

So move.

Okay, is there a second?

Okay, debate continues.

Um all right, um, we are continuing our discussion.

Ms.

Ewing, you are now recognized.

Go ahead.

I would like to move to to file uh uh to move for approval on wait what you want to move amendment six, okay.

Um is there a second to the motion to amend with amendment six?

Um okay, it's properly moved and seconded.

Is there anything that you want to share about amendment six, Ms.

Ewing?

I just wanted to briefly explain that it relates to um BL 2025-1008 in terms of uniform design for construction, um, uniform design construction operations for building projects that meet the requirements for voluntary housing incentive programs.

Um it's it's meant to build in some equity into projects that have the sustainable housing attached to it, um, so that the design standards are uniform and there is no sort of calling out of one type of housing or another.

And so it will build a more equitable project.

All righty.

Um you have heard the explanation of amendment uh six uh by Ms.

Ewing.

Um is there any discussion on the motion to amend with amendment six?

Um discussion?

Okay.

Um uh Ms.

Porterville, you're recognized.

Can we get a committee report?

Can we get a reminder of the committee report for each of the I'm happy to do that?

Amendment six um was approved by the committee.

12 uh in favor, zero against.

Thank you.