What happened at the Council meeting of Jan.7th with commentary and time stamp notation.

I am a little late getting around to analyzing the Council meeting of January 7th, so anything of any of any importance has probably already been learned. Nevertheless, here is my play-by-play and commentary.

If you want to follow along on the agenda, staff analysis and my analysis, then follow the link. This is a relatively short meeting at slightly under an hour.

There are 15 bill on public hearing and most are zoning bills. I do not attempt to report on zoning bills unless they are extremely controversial or for some reason the particular rezoning bill interest me. Rezoning bills usually interest no one except immediate neighbors.

The one bill of general interest is BILL NO. BL2013-629. This bill amends Metro's backyard chicken bill by removing the two-year sunset provision and also by expanding it to areas where it does not now apply. When the Chicken bill originally passed, several suburban Council members had their districts taken out of the bill.

Surprising to me, there is no one from the public in opposition. No one speaks on the bill and it passes on second reading. Here is the Tennessean's report on the bill: Backyard chickens might be allowed in all Nashville districts soon.

Councilman Bedne unsuccessfully attempts to get the bill deferred one meeting. Councilman Bennett successfully tables Councilman Bedne's deferral motion. The tabling motion passes by a vote of 24 yes, 11 no, 1 abstention, and 4 no votes. Most of the "no" votes are suburban council members. To view the vote go to time stamp 30:17.

Resolutions: All of those resolutions on the consent agenda pass and none are pulled. There are two bills not on the consent agenda. This one is of interest:

RESOLUTION NO. RS2014-948 which would appropriate $13,100,000 from the Undesignated Fund Balance of the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools General Purpose Fund to the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools General Purpose Fund Operational Account for the purpose of funding the purchase of laptop computers, teacher technology training and a universal screener assessment for the implementation of Common Core testing, is deferred by voice vote.

The Director of Finance had refused to sign the resolution as to the availability of funds, saying it would be fiscally irresponsible to spend a significant amount from the schools fund balance giving the funding deficit projected by the schools going into the coming fiscal year. The bill was sponsored by Councilman Bo Mitchell.

Given that the school board lost millions of dollars of State funding by unnecessarily picking a fight with the State and defying the State by refusing to approve Great Hearts charter school and given the school board's continued blaming of their budget woes on charter schools, and given the hefty increase in funding they got last budget year, I am pleased to see this deferral and hope it is defeated when it come back up.

The other bill that is not on the consent agenda approves the license and franchise of Nashville Gas. Why it was deferred is not explained.

Bills on First reading all pass unanimously as is the custom of the council. There are twenty-five bills on first reading and most of them are rezoning bills. Here are three bills of interest:

• ORDINANCE NO. BL2014-651 would establish new regulations of temporary music events.
• ORDINANCE NO. BL2014-653 would restrict activity at historic home events. I don't know what is behind this but there are always some people who have a axe to grind with those historic homes that operate as Bed and Breakfast or special event facilities. 
• ORDINANCE NO. BL2014-654 concerns beer sales and appears to expand the hours of operation of wholesale beer deliveries.

Bills on Second Reading:

• BILL NO. BL2013-588 is a rezoning bill that would allow the demolition of three duplexes and allow the construction of eight cottage-type units as single family homes in the Woodland-in-Waverly community. This in my neighborhood. This neighborhood has an historic overlay, but the three duplexes are non-contributing to the historic character of the community. I support this bill. I think the duplexes are more out of character of the neighborhood than the cottages will be and I think this will be an improvement, but some in the community are very much opposed, concerned about increased density and additional on street parking. This bill is deferred.
• BILL NO. BL2013-569 would change the regulations of car lots. This bill would remove the distinction between used car lots and new car lots and impose new restrictions. This bill was on first reading on public hearing on October 1 and to my surprise no one spoke on it on either side. From that meeting it was deferred to this meeting. This bill was disapproved by the planning commission. It is deferred.
• BILL NO. BL2013-603 which would regulate small outdoor music events on commercial property is deferred "by rule." Why are we having all of this effort to regulate outdoor music? Maybe it is a problem, but I would want to be sure that this is necessary before I could support it. We should not be putting impediments in the way of making "music city," music city unless there is some serious reason why this is necessary.
• BILL NO. BL2013-633 which would allow beer sales to began on Sunday at 10AM, passes.

Bills on Third Reading: 
BILL NO. BL2013-605 which would change the minimum fee that vehicles for hire are allowed to charge passes. This bill was necessary in order that app-based services like Lyft, Uber and Sidecar can operate in Nashville. There has been a realization on the part of those in the tourism industry that Nashville needs more public transportation options and more vehicles for hire.  I am very pleased this bill passes but would be more pleased it this bill established no minimum. A minimum is designed not to help consumers, but to protect providers of a service. I also would be more pleased if this bill removed the other onerous regulation of black sedans. This however, was big step in the right direction. 

To see my analysis of this bill and my extreme disappointment at one of those who voted against the bill, follow the links. In addition to the three who voted "no," there were 8 members who did not vote. To see how they voted, go to time stamp 51:44.

Top Stories

Nashville Chickens coming home to roost.

Two years ago this month, the Council passed a resolution to legalize the keeping of backyard chickens. There are limits on how many you may have based on your lot size and there are other restrictions and those who keep chickens must pay a registration fee. At the time it passed, some suburban district were amended out of the bill. Exempted from the bill were council districts 12, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Now, there is an attempt to remove those exempted districts and make the law apply county-wide.

Metro Councilman  Fabian Bedne who represents District 31, wants to keep his district's exemption from the bill and keep it illegal to keep chickens in his district. Here is an email letter he wrote to his constituents.

Greetings,

I wanted you to be aware that there is a Legislation coming to the Metro Council public hearing this January 7th regarding chickens. In the past I was able to exclude our District from the Law but this Legislation seeks to remove that exclusion. The sponsor argues that the law should be the same for the whole City, however that ignores the fact that Nashville is very different in Urban and Suburban areas (we already have farms with lots of farm animals).

I am very happy for people in urban areas to be able to have farm animals if they want to, raising chickens adds to a sustainable way of life. For our district it creates a problem of potentially attracting wild life (such as coyotes) closer to the homes. This sounds made up for people in the core but for us is reality.

I hope you will consider attending the Public Hearing at 6:30 pm January 7th. Thanks

ORDINANCE NO. BL2013-629 

An Ordinance amending Sections 8.12.020 and 17.16.250 pertaining to the keeping of chickens on residential property to remove the sunset provision and remove the prohibition of chickens in certain Council districts (Proposal No. 2014Z-001TX-001).

 BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY:
Section 1. That Section 8.12.020 of the Metropolitan Code is hereby amended by deleting subsection M. in its entirety.
Section 2. That Title 17 of the Metropolitan Code, Zoning Regulations, is hereby amended by deleting subsection B.1. in its entirety, and renumbering the remaining subsections accordingly.
Section 3. That this Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage, the welfare of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County requiring it.

Sponsored by: Karen Bennett, Anthony Davis, Megan Barry, Peter Westerholm

Top Stories

What Happened at the Jan. 17th 2012 Council Meeting

 ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-49 sponsored by Council Member Blalock is the ordinance that would repeal Metro's limousine price fixing provision in the Metro code. The bill was deferred indefinitely. The action on the bill occurred in committee. To read all about it, click here and here.

ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-82 which would allow the city to take over incomplete infrastructure and complete it in those cases where developers have failed to do so, passed unanimously without discussion. There are about 13 subdivisions where the streets or drainage was never completed and the developer went bankrupt or abandoned the project. People who bought in those subdivisions are enduring unfinished streets with manholes covers extending above the level of the road and other inconveniencies and hazards.

This is what happened accord to the Council staff analysis:

A 2009 Office of Financial Accountability monitoring report regarding the performance bond process identified a number of failures by the planning department to adequately monitor and administer the bonds. Specifically, the report noted the failure of the department to follow its own policies and procedures resulted in expired letters of credit and a backlog of 248 breached performance agreements exposing the Metropolitan Government to potential liability of $6.2 million. The monitoring report made a number of recommendations to prevent future occurrences, which have now been implemented by the planning department.

I am disappointed that no Council Member expressed outage about this and demanded to know who screwed up and got assurance that this could not happen again.  This was a good opportunity for someone to show leadership.

ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-83 which would allow the extension of water mains to homeowners with wells at the city’s expense was deferred one meeting. (see 18:30)  The bill was deferred and rereferred to budget and Finance at the recommendation of the B & F Committee. Extending water mains in these circumstances has always been a responsibility of the homeowner wanting Metro water.

The Backyard Chicken bill: Video coverage starts at 28:20 and does not end until 1:14:34. For a modern Council, this is a long debate. The bill was approved by the Planning Commission, disapproved by the Health, Hospitals and Social Services and disapproved by the Planning, Zoning and Historical Committees. Council Member Bennett moved the bill. After lengthy discussion, with several members taking to the floor to speak on the issue, the Council passed the bill after Council Member Robert Duvall successfully exempted from the bill council districts 12, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

Robert Duvall’s bill exempting the various district received the following 18 “Ayes” votes: Matthews, Hunt, Jernigan, Glover, Tenpenny, Moore, Allen, Baker, Langster, Harmon, Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Duvall, Todd, Mitchell. 

The following 17 members voted “no”: Tygard, Maynard, Harrison, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Stites, Stanley, Weiner, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, and Blalock.

These 3 members abstained: Barry, Steine, and Gilmore.

The final vote on the bill was as follows: “Ayes” Barry, Steine, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Stites, Allen, Gilmore, Langster, Evans, Holleman, McGuire, Todd (21); “Noes” Tygard, Jernigan, Glover, Stanley, Tenpenny, Baker, Weiner, Harmon, Blalock, Dominy, Johnson, Potts, Dowell, Duvall, Mitchell (15); “Abstaining” Moore, Bedne (2).

BILL NO. BL2011-58 is the Lifepoint bribe bill  that exempts Lifepoint from real and personal property taxes for the next 15 years as an inducement to get that company to move from Cool Springs in Williamson County to a Davidson County location four miles away. (See 1:15:20) Councilman Stites took to the floor auguring that this action would set a president that would not serve us well. He argues that deals such as this are cut behind closed doors with no transparent criteria as to who gets such deals and who does not. Stites may be a Councilman to watch and someone who could emerge as a leader in the Council.  I think if I had been in the Council, I would have had to vote “no.”

The bill passes with the following vote: “Ayes” Barry, Steine, Tygard, Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Anthony Davis, Bennett, Pridemore, Pardue, Jernigan, Glover, Moore, Allen, Gilmore, Baker, Langster, Weiner, McGuire, Harmon, Blalock, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell, Todd, Mitchell (31); “Noes” Stites, Stanley, Tenpenny, Dominy, Duvall (5).

Top Stories

What's to Watch for at the Council Meeting 1-17-2012

End Limo Price Fixing, the Chicken Bill, Fixing Unfinished Roads, and Bribing Lifepoint 

BILL NO. BL2011-49 on second reading, sponsored by Davette Blalock, would remove limousine price fixing from the Metro Code. Read all about it here.

ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-82 creates a means whereby Metro can accept unfinished infrastructure. When a developer develops a subdivision, he is supposed to complete the streets to an acceptable standard before Metro will accept them. There are several developments around town, where the developer went broke or the developer just abandoned the project and the streets were never completed. The developer is supposed to post a bond or secure a letter of credit which would insure that if the developer does go broke or abandon the project, Metro has the funds to complete the project. That did not always work out as planned. This bill establishes a procedure whereby, under certain circumstances, Metro can accept the incomplete streets and complete the development. This will set the stage for finishing the streets and infrastructure such as sidewalks and drainage systems in several subdivisions where the infrastructure was never completed. This will probably not be controversial and will offer relieve to many who are living in a new but never completed subdivision.

ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-83 by Councilman Stanley would allow Metro to extend water lines to homes using private wells. Currently, if one wants to extend a water line to ones property, it is at one's own expense. Fiscal watchdogs in the Council may have a problem with this bill. 

This Chicken bill (ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-47) by Council Member Karen Bennett is on third reading. I am for this bill but I probably won't be raising chickens.  Under this bill one can only have six hens, even on a big lot. On a 50' x 150' lot, which is the lot size in a lot of the more urbanized older areas, one could only have four hens and their are other restrictions and set back requirements. I don't think if your neighbor has four hens, you are going to smell them.  I think cats running lose are a much bigger nuisance than penned hens.  I am beginning to think this may not pass. It has a very enthusiastic core group of supporters but a lot of vocal opponents. I suspect it will be a close vote. Read all about it here.

The LifePoint relocation bill (ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-58) would entice Lifepoint to move from Brentwood to Davidson County by excusing them from paying property taxes for the next 15 years. I wish governments were not in the business of bribing companies to relocate. If this practice continues, companies will be playing a game of threatening to relocate unless they are bribed to stay put. And why not? Getting the best deal for moving or staying put will become what a responsible CEO does. Since this has become a standard practice, I guess we have to play the game however. If this makes sense for the city, I guess I would have to vote for it if I were in the Council, but I don't like it. I am not sure however, that in this instance, this deal makes economic sense for the city. I would like to see a healthy debate on this on the council floor, but this council seems to be adverse to debate. This would be an excellent opportunity for a council member to distinguish himself from the herd. 

The council meetings are much more interesting (well, "interesting" may be too strong- they are less boring) if you know what is going on. An agenda and analysis help.

Top Stories

Animal Control concerned over backyard chicken ordinance - WKRN, Nashville, Tennessee News, Weather and Sports |

Animal Control concerned over backyard chicken ordinance - WKRN, Nashville, Tennessee News, Weather and Sports |

Top Stories

No Chickens says Sylvan Park

From the Nashville Neighbors Google Group:

"At our annual membership meeting in Dec, we voted to oppose this bill.  It can
not and will not be enforced.  It pits neighbor against neighbor plus who wants
to have chickens 25 ft from their house with the smell and the noise."

Wendell Goodman
President, Historic Sylvan Park Inc.

Top Stories

Duane Dominy to Talk Chicken Bill

I have scheduled a meeting to discuss the Urban Chicken Ordinance on Saturday, January 14th, 12 p.m. – 2 p.m., Antioch Church of Christ, 2142 Antioch Pike. All Southeast Davidson County residents are invited to attend. I hope to see you there! Duane Dominy

Top Stories

What happened at the Jan. 3rd Council meeting: City Chicken bill passes. New Update.

Backyard chicken bill passes on second reading: The backyard chicken bill sponsored by Council Member Karen Bennett passed on second reading. The public hearing starts at 8:07 in the above video. See 26:53 for the cute kid with the weird chicken cap on his head. Go to 37:06 to see Andy Schneider a celebrity backyard chicken advocate known as the "Chicken Whisperer." The public hearing on this bill ends at 1:09:09. Council Member Robert Duvall spoke against the bill and says he will attempt to have his district removed from the ordinance because so many of his constituents oppose it. The bill passes by voice vote with several audible "no's."


In other Council meeting news,ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-30 which would amend the Metropolitan zoning code to prohibit the conversion of nonconforming billboards to tri-face billboards was deferred to the public hearing in March. Also ORDINANCE NO. BL2011-48 a bill concerning nonconforming on-premises signs was deferred indefinitely. 

Top Stories

What to look for at the January 3rd Council meeting. An update.

Signs and Chickens and not much else

This is a Council Meeting devoted to bills on public hearings and unless there is a zoning issue in your neighborhood that you care about, this council meeting will be even more boring than most council meetings. There are only two issues that will generate any general interest.

BILL NO. BL2011-30 will prohibit the conversion of nonconforming static billboards to tri-face billboards. This may sail though with no public comment but some neighborhood activist will be very much in favor of this bill and some sign industry people would be expected to oppose it.

The Backyard Chicken Bill (BL2011-47) sponsored by Karen Bennett establishes regulations and standards pertaining to the keeping of chickens. Currently, it is illegal to keep chickens in the city, this would permit that. Those wanting to keep Chickens would have to pay an annual $25 fee, could have no more than six hens and no roosters. At one time there was a lot of opposition to this bill, so I don't know if there will be a lot of comment or not but their could be.

There are also many people who strongly support this bill. There is even an organization with a Facebook page called Urban Chicken Advocates of Nashville (UCAN) which is pushing for passage of the bill.  I monitor several neighborhood websites and there has not been a lot of chatter about this recently. I am all in favor. I might raise chickens myself if this passes.

Update: Thanks to the Metro Council Member who informed me that currently the rule is that it is illegal to have chickens in the city if you have less than 5 acres. 
  

Another update: Charlotte Park Neighborhood Association opposes the backyard chicken bill. Posted in the Nashville Neighbors Google Group, Charlotte Park Neighborhood leaders Wallace and Janice Lampley post a letter sent to all Metro Council members urging them to vote against the Chicken bill.

We just think this is a bad idea, and will only cause many problems for neighbors and our Codes Department and Health Department, in dealing with all the complaints that will be coming in, if this is approved. As we've said before, Codes Department works hard, and so does our Health Department in trying to keep up with all the complaints in Davidson County, and this is just something that doesn't need to be added to their heavy complaints schedules already, and neighbors don't need to have to start dealing with something else in their neighborhood that has been a problem already in ours.

Top Stories

And a Cluck-Cluck here and Cluck-Cluck there....

FYI for anyone who really cares about this issue.  I am all for having chickens in the city but have no plans to keep keep them myself.  I saw Karen Bennett recently and told her I support her bill allowing chickens in the city buy told her I opposed the $25 annual fee for having chickens.  She said, the only way to control how many chickens one had and to make sure they had all hens and no roosters and were abiding by the restrictions was to have a permit and registration process. She said the bill could not pass without it. I understand, but wish an expansion of the bureaucracy was not necessary.

TO:                         Vice Mayor Diane Neighbors & Members of Metro Council

FROM:                   Councilwoman Karen Bennett

RE:                          Discussion of Domesticated Hen Bill - Ordinance No. BL2011-47

The purpose of this memorandum is to invite each of you to attend a meeting to discuss the proposed domesticated hen bill that will be considered by the Metro Council on public hearing in January 2012.

This meeting is open to residents county-wide and will allow an opportunity for attendees to ask questions and receive information about the permitted uses of this bill and how it will affect our community.  I have asked representatives from the Metro Health and Codes Administration Departments to attend to provide input.  The meeting is scheduled as follows:

                                Date:                     Monday, November 14, 2011

                                Time:                    6:30 p.m.

                                Place:                    Skyline Medical Center - Downstairs Auditorium
                                                             3441 Dickerson Pike, Nashville, TN  37207

Thank you for your attention and cooperation in this regard.  I look forward to meeting with you.

Top Stories

What to look for in the Metro Council Nov. 1

Neighborhood Zoning Issues, Billboards and maybe Chickens 

Tuesday night's council meeting is for bills on public hearing. Other than that, the only thing on the agenda are bills on first reading and resolutions, so unless you have a hot zoning issue in your neighborhood, public hearing nights can be real boring. With the current economy, there is less building and so there is not a lot of request for major zone changes for large tracks, so public hearings are not as lengthy as when we are experiencing a lot of growth and development. There are three bills dealing with billboard that may be of of general interest however.

BILL NO. BL2011-25.  This bill will change from RS15 to SP zoning a portion of property located at 3810 Kings Lane, to permit a digital reader board sign. This property is Temple Church.  SP refers to a new type of base zoning district in which design standards are established for that specific development and are written into the zone change ordinance. The purpose of this bill is to allow an LED sign where one would not otherwise be permitted. There has been a lot of controversy about LED signs and where they can be placed. Frankly, I have not kept up with all the nuances of this issue and don't care that much about it but I suspect some serious opposition to the bill. Neighborhood activist will fear this bill sets a president. A lot of neighborhood groups have become concerned about these bright signs on school or church properties in residential neighborhoods.  I understand that the Planning Commission today voted unanimously to disapprove the bill which means on third reading it will have to have a 2/3 majority to pass.

BILL NO. BL2011-29. This bill also deals with digital billboard or LED signs and essentially says that an existing non-conforming static billboard cannot be converted into a digital bill board. Since most billboards in Nashville are now non-conforming this bill would basically have the effect of prohibiting any new digital billboards in the city. I expect a lot of leaders of neighborhood groups will speak in favor of it and some sign companies will speak against it. 

BILL NO. BL2011-30. This is also a billboard bill prohibiting the conversion of nonconforming billboards to tri-face billboards Tri-face billboards consist of triangular louvers that automatically rotate to allow three different sign messages to be shown on the same sign. Expect the same groups as speak on the above bill to speak on this one.

BILL NO. BL2011-47. This bill sponsored by Karen Bennett is on first reading and almost always bills pass unanimously on first reading unless someone objects. This bill may prove controversial however when it reaches second reading.  This bill would allow one to raise a limited number chickens in ones backyard in the city.  Now chickens are prohibited in the city. To keep chickens one would have to pay a fee and no roosters allowed. I am in favor. Let people raise chickens. I don't see the harm. There are some people however who are adamantly opposed. On second reading, expect some jokes about hens and roosters and you may hear some "cluck, cluck, cluck" in the background as Council Lady Bennett argues her bill.

Top Stories