by Council Member Courtney Johnston, From and email dated Oct. 8, 2024 -Recently, I hosted a community meeting to discuss the transit referendum that will appear on our November ballots. I invited both the mayor’s office and the opposing group to allow both sides to be heard. I wanted everyone to have the opportunity to hear the plan being presented, ask their questions, and then hear from the opposing side and ask questions of them so they could make an informed decision when they go to the polls. In this situation, I believe my responsibility is to facilitate discussion and educate. I remained neutral in this meeting. However, I do have some concerns. 
Courtney Johnston
Anytime a tax increase is mentioned, my ears perk up and eyebrows raise. And certainly, a tax increase to finance a 30-year obligation should have us all looking deeply into what our goals are with this investment and what we realistically believe the results will be.
First, I believe the goal of any transit improvement plan should have two very basic objectives: 1) to manage existing cars on the road more efficiently and effectively and 2) to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads. Any aspect of any proposal should seek to address one or both of these objectives with the ultimate goal of reducing congestion and commute times.
Second, this proposal will be on your ballot to ask for your approval of a half cent increase in sales tax in Davidson County. Currently, items purchased here have a 9.25% sales tax. If approved, this will increase to 9.75%. The duration of this tax increase has been misunderstood. This is a 30-year time frame. Why? Because metro will issue 30-year revenue bonds in the amount of $3.1 Billion dollars – the principal amount. When the bonds are paid off in 30 years, the tax increase ends – that’s State law. This proposed sales tax increase is the dedicated revenue source identified to pay the debt service on these revenue bonds. “Debt service” means principal plus interest. There’s been some discrepancy in the total cost of this proposal. The total cost of this plan is $6.9 billion. $6.9 billion equals the principal amount ($3.1 billion) plus the interest over the course of the 30 years. So why is it being marketed as only $3.1 billion? Good question.
In 2018, when then Mayor Barry proposed her plan, she was forced to put the entire debt service amount on the ballot which was $8.95 billion. Her plan’s principal amount was $5.4 billion. I’m not sure why this current proposal is allowed to show only the principal amount and not the entire cost of debt service like the 2018 Barry proposal had to. I’d like to also explain the difference quickly between a revenue bond and a general obligation (GO) bond.
A revenue bond has a dedicated source of funds to pay the debt service that’s written into the bond document. A GO Bond is paid for through the general fund (where your property taxes go) from our operating budget which we pass each year. GO bonds are limited in amount by what we can afford as our operating budget has to balance (income equals expenses). We also have acceptable debt limits to adhere to. Revenue bonds are outside of that because the revenue dedicated is outside the operating budget. BUT – if that revenue source is minimized or goes away for whatever reason, metro has to pick up the tab. The only way to do that is to raise property taxes.
Third, it’s incredibly important to note that this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with our interstate system. If you are tired of sitting in stand still traffic on I-40, I-24 or I-24, this plan cannot and will not do anything to alleviate this. I’ve seen some groups trying to conflate this and that is misleading and false.
So, what does the Choose How You Move proposal include and how did it come about?
It includes Sidewalks, Signals, Service and Safety. Let’s look at each of these through the lens of our goals and our expected return on investment (ROI):
SIDEWALKS - This plan includes the building of 86 miles of sidewalks over a 15-year period. Here are my concerns. While most everyone agrees that sidewalks are good and people want them (including me), do we believe that this will encourage people ditch their car and walk to work, the grocery, etc.? Certainly, people will use them recreationally. And they’ll likely use them to walk to nearby retail establishments, schools and/or churches – probably within a 1-mile radius of their home. But do we really believe that this will have a major impact on lessening vehicular traffic on our roads? Also, these 86 miles proposed is based on today’s pricing of the construction of sidewalks. Next year’s pricing will be different – likely higher – and certainly 5 and 10 years from now it will be higher. My concern is that, since the principal amount of the bonds are finite, the increase in cost associated with building sidewalks over the course of 15 years will lessen the miles of sidewalks we can actually build. Sidewalks are a need, to be sure. They are missing in most places and need improvements in others. But, in my opinion as it relates to ROI, these sidewalks will do little if anything to meet the goals of the proposal which is to reduce the number of vehicles on our streets. Also, last year metro built 8 miles of sidewalk. This proposal promises 86 miles in 15 years. That math is 5.73 miles per year…
SIGNALS - Nearly 600 traffic signals will be updated with smart synchronization. This is something Metro Nashville has been talking about for years if not decades. And, yes, it’s needed. Not fun fact - Most people are probably not aware that metro purchased software back in 2012 to synchronize our signals. So, what happened to that? Well, turns out that the software we purchased wasn’t compatible with our hardware. Liken it to trying to use an iPhone software update on a flip phone. Pretty maddening… Anyway, while I do believe this is something that is necessary to help manage traffic on our streets, I’m wondering how much of an impact this will have in reality. So, I asked the presenter and was told that we can expect to see a 10% reduction in commute times as a direct correlation to the modernized signals. So, let’s say I need to get downtown to the courthouse from my south Nashville home. I’m close to the Williamson County border. Taking ONLY local streets and not the interstate as this plan doesn’t address interstate traffic, let’s say that takes me 45 minutes to take Franklin Rd to 8th Ave S and meander my way to downtown. This will shave off less than 5 minutes of my commute which I think is a small almost negligible ROI. Again, I agree with the need for modernized signalization and I’m glad we’ve opened the command center. But we aren’t going to see much of a difference in commute times and this is actually a relatively small investment as it relates to the $3.1 billion overall cost. I believe we can, and should, do that separately.
SERVICE – By far the most expensive piece of the proposal includes:
WeGo bus service expansion to 24/7/365 with more frequent stops.
12 new transit centers and 17 park and ride facilities.
54 miles of all-access corridors. (All Access Corridor is defined as streets that provide a safe transportation system that accommodates all users whether they walk, bike, ride transit, or drive.)
39 miles of complete streets (Complete Streets projects include elements like sidewalks, bikeways, lighting and enhanced crossings)
Again, my concern is the return on investment. The goal of the bus system is to reduce the number of individual vehicles on our streets and provide safe, reliable transportation to those who need it. When I asked what the Mayor’s Office projected as far as increased ridership as a result of this proposed expansion, the answer was disappointing, albeit truthful. They could not project or guarantee any amount of increase in ridership. Wouldn’t it be terrible if we spend billions on expanding our bus system only to see more empty buses driving around the county? Another thing we learned is that only 4 of the 12 proposed transit centers have specific locations identified. The other 8 have general areas where they would like to have them. So, what will the cost of land acquisition be for these centers? Where exactly will they be and do these areas want a 24/7 transit center in their neighborhood? In this plan literature, it states the “map and project list depict conceptual implementation at the time of the TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) development”, which means all of these projects listed are just concepts. What’s not just a concept is the tax increase and the 30-year debt service obligation for metro. That’s a sure thing.
Another concern was brought up about the safety of these centers which are to be heated and cooled, equipped with restrooms and wi-fi, and operating 24 hours a day. The Mayor’s Office acknowledged the concern around our homeless population utilizing these spaces and offered the idea of creating “Transit Police”. In reality, a separate police force has proven to not be very effective. Look at our Park’s Police. Those officers are trained and equipped just like MNPD officers so it’s not a question of competence. We have never been fully staffed at Park’s Police - routinely having over 75% of the positions remaining unfilled. There are jurisdiction issues as well as daily responsibility and compensation issues that create a difficult environment for recruiting and retaining for Parks Police. In my opinion, a separate police force is not wise and MNPD doesn’t have the capacity to create another division. A transit security team is likely a more feasible and effective way to handle 24/7 security of these transit centers. Same for Parks – but I digress.
Back to ROI - will this expansion actually move us in the right direction as far as our transit goals to reduce congestion and the number of individual cars on the road? Will a meaningful number of people choose to ride the bus instead of taking their own vehicle? Do we think out of county commuters will pull off at a park and ride at or near the county line to take the bus the rest of the way in? Is the high cost of operating 24/7 justified by demand from a meaningful number of people needing transportation between the hours of midnight and 4:45am? And I use the term “meaningful” purposefully. Surely there will be some folks that utilize the bus system at all hours of the night and take advantage of the expansion. But is it enough to justify this price tag? Certainly, our bus system needs some improvements. Cross county connections would be helpful as opposed to the hub and spoke model we currently have as an example. Safety absolutely is a concern even at regular bus shelters that exist today. But I’m concerned, regardless of any expansion, that a meaningful number of people will actually start utilizing the bus regularly giving us any significant ROI.
I consider myself to be fiscally responsible and thoughtful. This proposal makes me a bit uncomfortable and as a leader in my community I feel a sense of duty to express my concern over such a large and expensive proposal. While someone from the Choose How You Move campaign at my community meeting said that opposing this plan is equivalent to “sticking your head in the sand”, I strongly disagree. Questioning the ability of this proposal to actually solve, or at least meaningfully reduce congestion and commute times for this large of a long-term investment is the responsible, thoughtful thing to do. Being opposed to this plan doesn’t mean you don’t think we have a problem and prefer to do nothing. It means you believe this particular plan isn’t going to give us the ROI we’re expecting and deserve and that it could use a little more work.
The Mayor’s Office says this plan was created using 70 previous plans created over decades and 66,000 pieces of input from those plans. I assume that stating this is to imply comprehensiveness. However, I think given the growth of Nashville and Davidson County, especially in the last decade, that plans older than that are likely antiquated and mostly useless.
Some people are arguing that sales tax is a regressive tax – meaning, in large part, it doesn’t take in to account the taxpayers’ ability to pay, thereby negatively impacting those with lower income levels more than those with higher income levels. Regressive taxation isn’t all bad and can be necessary for many things including public infrastructure and the balancing of progressive taxation. My problem is not necessarily with the regressive nature of this tax. Yes, some will be impacted more than others – but a half cent increase in sales tax that matches surrounding counties is likely not that burdensome. My problem is the long-term obligation metro is entering in to and the sustainability of this tax – all for very little if any return on investment. Yes, sales tax has proven to be incredibly lucrative in recent years as a direct result of our economic growth and our tourism industry. 20 years ago, however, I’m not sure projections would be as strong as metro did not foresee this explosion of economic growth. Can we sustain that for 30 years?
This year, revenue is projected to be flat, and actuals have even come in lower than conservative projections in some models. The mayor’s office says that 60% of this tax is paid for by folks that live outside Davidson County. Correct! Most of that is from tourism! What happens if tourism declines? Why are we not being more pro-active with public safety to protect our citizens and our economy, including tourism? Why did the mayor fail to fund license plate readers (LPRs) in this year’s budget for MNPD and why is he slow walking those contracts to be approved by council? (PS – the ordinance allowing full implementation of LPRs passed well over a year ago…) What are we doing to address homelessness in this county? Why is the mayor pandering to groups that don’t want to close homeless encampments (even though we house and provide services for every single person in those encampments when we close them)?
With our lack of focus on public safety, increases in crime rates and the homeless population can and will negatively impact our tourism industry which will, first and foremost, reduce our sales tax receipts. Once the bonds are issued, though, it doesn’t matter. The obligation remains – and $6.9 billion is nothing to scoff at. As I explained earlier, if sales tax revenue falls short, our general fund must make up the difference. That means a property tax increase.
Some folks asked, why now? I, too, question the timing of this – especially as rates are not so great as we all know. Metro has an incredible bond rating, but bond rates in general are just high right now. I’ve heard people say they feel this plan is rushed. Granted we’ve been talking about this for quite some time – this isn’t a new problem. But this particular plan, they say, seems rushed. I tend to agree. I believe they are chasing increased voter turnout from the presidential election. Additionally, I believe we will be faced with a property tax increase in FY26 or FY27 making a sales tax increase a no go after that. Maybe they think it’s now or never, but I disagree.
So, you say, if not this plan what would you do, Courtney? There are aspects of this plan I think are good and necessary. The benefit of having a dedicated source of revenue for transit does help us in rankings for federal grants – but not having it doesn’t preclude us from receiving federal grants. I’d prefer a phased approach with a smaller fiscal note, or cost, that we can build out more quickly and gauge success. Since this plan is just a “concept” we really don’t know what we’re actually going to get. I personally don’t feel comfortable giving the government that amount of money without a very prescriptive plan and known, or at least projected, return on investment that’s meaningful.
So, do the benefits outweigh the high cost? Are we really getting anything meaningful out of this plan in terms of mitigating congestion? Is this the right plan? That’s for you, the voter, to decide. I’ll be voting no.
Top Stories
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment