Mayor Dean Proposes New Funding Strategy for Gulch - SoBro Pedestrian Bridge

Mayor Karl Dean announced yesterday that legislation has been reintroduced for the city to move forward with the Gulch-SoBro Pedestrian Bridge, which would serve pedestrians and bicyclists connecting two of the downtown area’s most vibrant growing neighborhoods. (The Mayor's comments began at time stamp 4:07 in the video.) 

Mayor Dean says the Gulch area is currently isolated from the rest of the city and the pedestrian bridge will fix that. He also says the pedestrian bridge will be an attraction in is own right and a destination. He explains it will be financed not through general obligation bonds, but from revenues generated from Gulch-area projects that will benefit most from the bridge, specifically seven residential and commercial developments in the Gulch.

This kind of financing is called "tax increment financing." It is often used to finance infrastructure improvements downtown in connection with new projects.  The way this works is that the city makes roadway, sidewalk, utility or other improvements which benefit a new development, and the new development generates tax revenue that would not have otherwise been realized had not the new development occurred. The tax revenue from the new project first goes to pay for the infrastructure improvements rather than into the general fund.

In this case, tax increment financing is already being used to pay for infrastructure improvements in the Gulch. To finance the pedestrian bridge, the city would borrow the money and it would be added to the debt for Gulch infrastructure improvements currently being paid off with tax increment financing and would be paid for over the next seven to eight years.

The pedestrian bridge was identified as a high priority in the South of Broadway (SoBro) Master Plan, which was developed through a series of community input meetings to address the rapidly-changing SoBro area. Legislation to acquire land for the bridge was initially filed earlier this year, but was indefinitely deferred by the Metro Council.

The bridge will be about 700 feet long, including 400 feet over the CSX railroad tracks that separate the Gulch from downtown. A single concrete tower supports the cable-suspended bridge. The bridge will be dramatic and will have park-like seating, open space and and entertainment areas.

In February 2014 the Council turned down the project voting 30-2 against it.  I applauded the council's action at the time. The city has been a spending spree for the last few years and I was concerned, and still am concerned, we are getting overextended. A few months prior to the Council defeating the $15 million Gulch pedestrian bride project, the Council had wisely defeated an effort to finance part of Metro's employee pension liability, but the council had voted to authorize borrowing millions of dollars to purchase lap top computers for the schools which I thought should have been budgeted out of current revenue rather than borrowed, assuming they were needed.  The computers were purchased to be ready to test for common core which has since been delayed.

With the $623 million Music City Center, the $17 million east bank Riverfront Park development, $65 million Sulphur Dell ball park, the $32 million ice hockey facility in Antioch and other projects, Metro has taken on an unprecedented level of debt. With proposals to build a new $40 million Riverfront Park expansion and amphitheater, a $175 million-plus AMP bus rapid transit project, there appears to be no end in sight. I was pleased when the council stopped a project. Nashville is the "it" city now and is booming. I hope that continues, but if there is an economic downturn or some anticipated development around the Sulphur Dell ball park does not take place, we the tax payers could be on the hook to pay the debt.

Now, the pedestrian bridge is back before us.  I like the project. I do not think it a waste of money. I

also do not object that it is designed to be attractive. Maybe we could build a straight functional bridge for half the price, but something esthetically pleasing and dramatic may be worth the extra cost. I want Nashville to be an attractive city. If we are going to build it; make it attractive. However, I am not sure we can afford everything we like.

On, the one hand, this new  proposal to finance the project is like paying for it out of money that will be in your right pocket rather than money that will be in your left pocket.  On the other hand,  this way of financing does not eat up debt capacity and can reserve debt capacity for neighborhood sidewalk improvements, which I understand would happen under this arrangement.

 Councilman Josh Stites has voiced strong reservations about the project saying:

I am unmoved. Basically, all we’re doing is we are delaying payments to the general fund until we pay off the bridge. It would be similar to saying, ‘Why don’t you let me take my property taxes and install a swimming pool out back?’ That’s essentially what we’re doing for these seven.

When developers in my district build something, like an apartment complex, they have to pay for the sidewalks themselves. They have to pay for the water and sewer that’s running through the project. Metro doesn’t pay for that.

Councilman Charlie Tygard appears to be warming to the project saying,  “If they’re intent on transferring this bridge money into the sidewalk fund, I think the council will be pleased,” he said. “It’s a creative way. It certainly beats denying other neighborhoods needed sidewalks for this pretty expensive project.”

At this point, I am cautiously tending to favor the project, but still have reservations and will wait to see what the discussion is in Budget and Finance before reaching a conclusion. I do not want to be sitting ourselves up for future tax increases, however downtown development brings in more tax revenue than development elsewhere. Continuing to make downtown attractive, which spurs more new development may be a wise investment.

Source of some of the above quotes and facts are found here and here.

Top Stories

NashvilleNext tonight addresses Smart Growth

William Fulton AICP, Smart Growth America's Vice President and Director of Policy Development and Implementation, will discuss "The High Cost of America's Inefficient Development Patterns" at 5:30 pm Monday, April 22, at the Nashville Children's Theater, 25 Middleton Street.

Top Stories

Thankfully, no anti-Agenda 21 activism here, yet.

by Rod Williams, July 9, 2012 - Last Tuesday the Metro Council approved two resolutions authorize the issuance of "qualified energy conservation bonds in an amount not to exceed $10,000,000 to make energy saving retrofits and improvements to the Bridgestone Arena. These bonds take advantage of the federal Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (QECB) program, which was expanded as part of the federal stimulus plan. Under the QECB program, the federal government pays 70% of the interest on the bonds in the form of a direct credit to the local government as long as the bonds are issued for energy efficiency capital projects in public buildings." (link)

These resolutions passed on a consent agenda without discussion. These are the kinds of bills that when they go before the Council get little scrutiny. Reading the agenda and analysis and being generally well informed, I still do not know if these resolution were a good move for the city or not. I am fairly well educated and stay informed, but I cannot become an expert on everything and neither can members of the Council. Yet bills like this must pass the Council.  This is where individual Council members must defer to experts.

If I had been on the Council, and not a member of the Budget &Finance Committee, I would defer to that committee's recommendation. If on the B&F, I would try to understand the resolutions but would defer to the judgment of the administration and the City's finance department and city consultants. Unless something raised a red flag, I would go along. That is what usually happens.  Metro is on a pretty sound financial footing, so deferring to the experts has worked out pretty well.

I do worry however about a continuing increase in debt obligations of the city. The city has gambled on the convention center being self supporting and to increase revenue to the city from the convention business. I hope the gamble pays off. I also worry about the pension obligations of the city. The Council needs to be cautious about expanding the debt obligations of the city and I would wish the Council would reform the defined pension system to a matched contribution, employee invested, employee owned, retirement system. I hope the Council while deferring to the experts on issues like the QECB bond issue, pays close attention to the overall fiscal health of our government.

QECB is a program that offers a federal government incentive for local governments to go green. According to a Department of Energy description of the program this funding mechanism can be used to fund qualified energy conservation projects. What is that?

The definition of "qualified energy conservation projects" is fairly broad and contains elements relating to energy efficiency capital expenditures in public buildings; green community programs (including loans and grants to implement such programs); renewable energy production; various research and development applications; mass commuting facilities that reduce energy consumption; several types of energy related demonstration projects; and public energy efficiency education campaigns (see 26 USC § 54D for additional details). Renewable energy facilities that are eligible for CREBs are also eligible for QECBs.

This is the kind of program that across the county is being denounced as part of Agenda 21. Here is some news from Houston:

It's just after 10:30 a.m. inside the cavernous Houston City Council chambers when CouncilMember Helena Brown, who has held office for only four months, scrunches her small, cherubic features into a scowl and requests the right to speak. The matter before the council involves the construction of a $26-million maintenance facility. Ordinarily, this sort of item would whisk through the city council amid a chorus of yes votes and self-congratulation. But this isn't an ordinary gathering at City Hall, and Helena Brown isn't an ordinary council member.

"Let us see what this is all about," Brown reads from a prepared statement, voice soft and nasally. "This is a company that wants to take advantage of a $30 billion initiative that our president has approved to rebuild schools and outdated buildings, according to Agenda 21."

In city after city, things that used to be routine are being denounced as part of Agenda 21. Planning studies, bike lanes, high density housing zoning, membership is planning organizations and multi-county planning commissions are being denounced and in some cases the anti-Agenda 21 advocates are being successful in killing what used to be routine government actions. 

In Georgia, there is a proposed 1-cent state sales tax to fund a new highway and bike lanes in metro Atlanta. One may oppose that tax for many reasons, but the Chairman of the Cobb County Commission is denouncing it as an agenda 21 proposal. 

It is also happening here in Tennessee. In Sevier County where I was raised and still have family, county residents are accusing a group called Our Smokies, Our Future, of  being part of  the Agenda 21 plot. Our Smokies, Our Future appears to nothing more than an organization concerned with things like water quality and meeting the needs of a growing county, and preserving the natural beauty of the county that adjoins the Smoky Mountains. 

People who have been "educated" by the John Birch Society and their fellow travelers to be aware of Agenda 21 look for anything with the certain words used in the description, words such as: "Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, STAR, Sustainable Communities, Green Jobs, Green Building Codes, “Going Green,” Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, Facilitators, Regional Planning, Historic Preservation, Conservation Easements, Development Rights, Sustainable Farming, Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management, Consensus." (link)

Facilitators? Historic preservation? Consensus? Yes, I am afraid it is true.

If any government program or piece of legislation contains these words, they oppose it believing that these are code words for taking away our property rights, depopulating the rural areas and suburbs, forcing everyone into compact cities, taking away our cars, and maybe even killing off 96% of the worlds population. 

Despite a strong Anti-agenda presence and several anti-Agenda 12 training session occurring in Davidson and  Williamson County, and despite our State legislature passing a resolution giving a green light to the anti-Agenda 21 hysteria, the anti-Agenda 21 political activism has not yet reached our area. 

During the recent Council budget hearings, none of the opponents of a tax increase argued against funding the Planning Commission because it was part of Agenda 21 or argued against sidewalks and bike paths as being part of Agenda 21 or argued against Nashville's participation in the regional planning commission. The Metro Planning Department can still hold neighborhood planning session without being bombarded with anti-agenda 21 rhetoric and denunciations. 

Thankfully we do not have anyone like Helena Brown in the Metro Council wasting time on a phantom threat. Thankfully we do not have citizen activist disrupting the normal operation of governing. Governing, being fiscally responsible, and making informed difficult decisions about complex funding mechanisms can be hard enough without mucking up the water with nonsense.

Top Stories

Smart Growth for Conservatives

Finally, I do not feel like the Lone Ranger. There is another conservative has not joined the John Birch Society and Jesse Ventura tin foil hat brigade. The below essay is from a blog called Bacon Rebellion.

Preface to “Smart Growth for Conservatives”

by James Bacon

Smart Growth, which I define as efficient human settlement patterns, is neither an inherently liberal nor an inherently conservative idea. Efficiency is efficiency. Cost effectiveness is cost effectiveness.

The problem is that liberals (progressives, whatever you want to call them) were primarily the first to recognize the obvious truth that the settlement patterns we commonly refer to as “suburban sprawl” are very inefficient indeed. Unfortunately, liberals being liberals, they sought top-down, government-directed solutions. Then, conservatives, being allergic to government-led social engineering, reacted by dismissing Smart Growth as the spawn of the devil.

The logical, if somewhat extreme, outcome of the conservative dismissal of Smart Growth is the anti-Agenda 21 movement, which connects non-existing dots between the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainability agenda, President Obama’s green policies and efforts in Virginia’s cities and counties to implement Smart Growth. Thus, in this conspiratorial mindset, anything resembling Smart Growth is seen as part of a larger movement to undermine American freedoms and liberties. Frighteningly, this movement has gained momentum in a number of Virginia counties and created a distraction from the real issues. (read more)

Top Stories