The Metro Council agenda and staff analysis are now available for the July 15th Council meeting. Council meetings are really, really boring if you don't know what is going on; with an agenda and a staff analysis they are just boring. Follow the above links to get your own copy.
Below is my summary of the agenda. I am only listing specific legislation when I find of interest or think may be important or controversial. To know more of what is on the agenda, read the agenda and staff analysis for yourself. Thee is not a lot of interest on the agenda and I suspect this will be a sort meeting.
There are three appointments to boards and commissions on the agenda for council confirmation. The council always rubber stamps them and never ask hard questions of the appointees.
There is one of those bills on public hearing to allow a beer permit for a location that already has a liquor by the drink permit, that violates the distance requirement of the regulation for a beer license, meaning it is too close to a park or school or resident or church. Rather than waste the Council's time with this, I think the law should be changed so that if you have a liquor by the drink license then the distance requirement for a beer license would not apply.
There are seven resolutions on the consent agenda and I don't see any of them as controversial and suspect they will stay on the consent agenda. A resolution is put on the consent agenda if it is expected to be non-controversial and it stays on consent if it passes the committee to which it was assigned unanimously. The consent agenda is passed by a single vote of the council. Any member may have a bill pulled off of consent and considered individually.
RESOLUTION NO. RS2014-1157 appropriates $2.15 million to various non profits to do such things as provide emergency food boxes, help disabled people paying their house payment or utilities, $78.8000 to help victims of AIDS, nursing assistance for kids in after and pre school programs, and a lot more. To see which agencies got the money, see the staff analysis.
First reading is a formality to get the bill on the agenda. Bills are normally not discussed on first reading and are passed as a group. There are six bills on First reading, so these means next Council meeting will also probably be a short meeting because what is on First reading this time will be on Second reading next time. I don't carefully review the bills on first reading.
There are only ten bills on Second readings and I don't find any of particular interest.
Here are bills of interest on Third reading:
BILL NO. BL2014-772 on third reading adds new regulations for Construction and Demolition land fields. The regulations seem reasonable and will provide some protection for residence living near one of these facilities.
BILL NO. BL2014-776 on third reading is the bill to create the Music City Cultural Heritage Overlay District to protect our honky tonks. It would require all businesses on lower Broadway, 2nd Ave and Printers Alley to have live music or sale merchandise reflective of Nashville culture- think boots, cowboy hats, tee shirts, and tacky souvenirs. It would also ban chain establishments. This was spurred by the threat of Walgreens to open a store on Lower Broad. The buildings are already protected and this would apply to use. I love lower Broad and the honky tonks, but this is just too restrictive. People may want a nice meal without live music after visiting the honky tonks all day and night. If this was already in place we would not have the Hard Rock Café. If this was in place, we would not have the ice cream store on lower Broad. We would not have the Merchants Hotel restaurant. We once had a Planet Hollywood on Lower Broad and while I did not particularly like it, it was better than an empty building. Do we want to stop House of Blues from opening in Nashville, if they wanted to do so?
While I would not want to see it on Lower Broad, a sports memorabilia store, an art gallery, or a good antique store, or a candy store on Second Ave, may provide a better experience for tourist. This is just too restrictive. If I were in the Council, I would have to vote against it. This has been disapproved by the Planning Commission and it will take 27 votes to pass. It was on Third reading last meeting and I thought it was deferred for two meetings at that time, however I must have been mistaken, because the minutes simply say it was deferred.While there are several zoning bills on Third reading that may be of interest to neighbors in the area of the rezoning, I don't see any other bills of general interest that are worth noting.