A resolution approving an intergovernmental project agreement between the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County and the Convention Center Authority of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County relating to the financing and refinancing of the Music City Center.

Topics

Introduced: August 18, 2026
Last action: Adopted · August 18, 2026

Sponsors

AI summary — check the source Corrected after adversarial review

Council adopts Music City Center financing deal 31-6 after long debate

Metro Council adopted a resolution approving an agreement between Metro and the Convention Center Authority covering the financing and refinancing of the Music City Center. Supporters said it removes Metro's guarantee (the "backstop") on convention center bonds and frees up roughly $300 million Metro had planned to spend on the East Bank, money they said could go toward affordable housing and projects elsewhere in the county. Opponents said the deal doubles down on a 2010 arrangement that traps tourism tax money downtown and now routes some of it to a state-run program that only gives tax relief to downtown businesses. An attempt to cut off debate failed before the final vote, and the resolution passed 31-6 with three members absent.

What it does

Approves an intergovernmental project agreement between Metro Nashville and the Convention Center Authority dealing with how the Music City Center is financed and refinanced. In debate, council members described the practical effects as ending Metro's obligation to cover convention center bonds if they go unpaid and freeing about $300 million of Metro money previously earmarked for East Bank infrastructure.

What happened, in plain language

The resolution was adopted on a recorded machine vote: 31 Yes, 6 No, 0 abstentions, with 3 members absent. Voting No were Quin Evans-Segall, Joy Smith Kimbrough, Sean Parker, Ginny Welsch, Terry Vo and Sandra Sepulveda; Deonte Harrell, Brandon Taylor and Brenda Gadd were absent. Resolutions get a single council vote, so this is final council approval of the agreement — no further readings. Before the final vote, a motion to cut off debate failed 24-13 because it needed two-thirds of those voting.

On the floor · 18 points

Against

Objected to how much money the arrangement directs toward a $1 billion new convention center, saying the 2010 convention center deal captured far more revenue than needed and locked it away from the rest of Nashville.

a council member Watch 1:31:15
Against

Said finance's conservative 1-2% growth projections add up to about $6 billion in revenue over the life of the deal, and that realistic growth would push it to $8-9 billion to build a $1 billion facility.

a council member Watch 1:31:56
Against

Urged colleagues to vote no, saying the city is repeating the mistakes of the past.

a council member Watch 1:32:38
Against

Argued the deal is worse than the status quo because excess convention center funds would flow into a state-administered grant program providing tax relief only to businesses inside the tourism development zone, rather than being available to plug Metro budget gaps.

a council member Watch 1:33:23
Against

Called the arrangement corporate welfare, saying downtown money will stay downtown and downtown businesses will not pay the same taxes as everyone else, right after a property tax increase.

a council member Watch 1:34:23
For

Said she is not in love with the deal but will vote yes, arguing downtown businesses generate much of the revenue that funds citywide programming and the real problem is Metro not distributing that money equitably across the county.

Joy Styles Watch 1:35:15
For

Said Metro has always received the base tourism zone revenue into the general fund and that finance figures show a net financial benefit to Metro under the new structure, which is constrained by state law Metro cannot change.

Kyonzté Toombs Watch 1:37:01
For

Said recent state law changes let Metro remove the backstop that puts it on the hook for convention center and Omni hotel bonds, which increases Metro's capacity to issue the affordable housing bonds the council has wanted.

Kyonzté Toombs Watch 1:37:22
Context

A motion to end debate (the "previous question") was called from the floor and failed, needing two-thirds; the chair announced 24 in favor and 13 against, and debate continued. The official record names Council Member Johnston as making the motion.

a council member Watch 1:39:39
For

Said the deal was poorly structured from the start and Metro could have negotiated better, but the housing bonds the council has long sought become possible once the backstop is removed.

Zulfat Suara Watch 1:40:08
For

Said she is skeptical of the state but that the finance director committed in budget committee to putting the bond savings toward housing, and that the roughly $300 million no longer spent on the East Bank can be distributed throughout the county.

Zulfat Suara Watch 1:41:10
For

Explained a backstop plainly: guaranteeing someone else's bonds means Metro pays if they do not, like co-signing a child's car loan, and said Metro should get out of that.

Zulfat Suara Watch 1:42:21
Context

Said she was unsure whether she was rising in support or opposition after spending about two hours reviewing the deal with finance, and wanted the details on the record for constituents.

a council member Watch 1:43:08
Context

Said freeing up $300 million for other uses feels like trickle-down economics and will not translate dollar-for-dollar into affordable housing bonds or neighborhood spending.

a council member Watch 1:44:06
Context

Noted the room occupancy tax, rental car fee and hotel tax are state-imposed, so Metro cannot redirect them to housing or schools; voting the deal down would leave the money sitting unused, while passing it captures the $300 million, about $91 million in general fund savings through 2043, and preserves the capital spending plan.

a council member Watch 1:44:43
Context

Said this appears to be the only way to get meaningful dollars out of the convention center, while adding that she is not convinced the convention center needs expanding and shares that concern raised earlier in debate.

a council member Watch 1:46:00
For

Said he campaigned in 2019 against the tourism zone keeping money downtown but is voting yes based on the data, because voting the deal down still leaves that money unusable.

Russ Bradford Watch 1:46:27
For

Said he dislikes any deal with a Metro backstop because taxpayers pay if it goes south, and this removes that responsibility while freeing Metro's bond capacity for capital projects outside downtown. Called it not perfect but better than nothing.

Russ Bradford Watch 1:46:52

What the AI is unsure about · 1 issue caught & corrected

Several speakers appear in the transcript only as diarization IDs (SPEAKER_02, SPEAKER_06, SPEAKER_10), so they are described as "a council member" even though the chair announced names just before them; readers should not assume the announced name matches the following speaker. The auto-transcript is garbled in places — "TDC"/"Z T D" for TDZ (tourism development zone), "sex tax" for sales tax, "Inback" for East Bank, and inconsistent renderings of member names — so quoted figures such as the $6 billion, $91 million and $300 million amounts are as spoken, not verified against a fiscal note. Dollar figures, revenue projections and the finance director's commitment are members' characterizations in debate, not text in the official action record. The transcript window opens mid-way through the previous agenda item.

A second pass challenged these claims — the text above already carries the corrections

Discussion point 5 (t=5663) says downtown businesses would avoid taxes "right after a property tax increase," but the transcript only says "after the tax raise we had to do" (t=5623) — the speaker never specifies it was a property tax. The word "property" is imported from outside the packet, violating the rule that claims must be supported by the packet.

This summary was written from the meeting transcript and the official action record, then checked by a second pass looking for claims the transcript does not support. Where the two disagree, the record and the recording are what count.

See this item in the full agenda for August 18, 2026 →

History

Considered August 18, 2026 Metropolitan Council

See the full August 18, 2026 agenda →
Adopted August 18, 2026 Metropolitan Council

Official record

The resolution was approved by the Ad-Hoc East Bank Committee. Council Member Toombs moved that the resolution be adopted, which motion was properly seconded. After discussion, Council Member Johnston called for the previous question, which motion was seconded and failed by the following roll call vote: Yes (24): Allen, Hill, Toombs, Gamble, Hancock, Webb, Eslick, Evans, Bradford, Huffman, Gregg, Cash, Kupin, Horton, Weiner, Druffel, Johnston, Nash, Benton, Ellis, Rutherford, Styles, Lee, and Spain; No (13): Suara, Porterfield, Evans-Segall, Kimbrough, Cortese, Parker, Capp, Benedict, Welsch, Vo, Preptit, Sepulveda, and Ewing; Abstain (0). After further discussion, Council Member Toombs moved that the resolution be adopted, which motion was seconded and approved by the following roll call vote:

See the full August 18, 2026 agenda →
Yes

31

No

6

Absent

3
Who voted how (40 members)
Yes · 31

Zulfat Suara
Delishia Porterfield
Burkley Allen
Olivia Hill
Kyonzte Toombs
Jennifer Gamble
Mike Cortese
Clay Capp
Emily Benedict
Tonya Hancock
Jennifer Webb
Jeff Eslick
Erin Evans
Russ Bradford
Jordan Huffman
Jeff Gregg
Tom Cash
Jacob Kupin
Rollin Horton
Sheri Weiner
Thom Druffel
Jeff Preptit
Courtney Johnston
Bob Nash
David Benton
Tasha Ellis
John Rutherford
Joy Styles
Antoinette Lee
Sandy Ewing
Jason Spain

No · 6

Quin Evans-Segall
Joy Smith Kimbrough
Sean Parker
Ginny Welsch
Terry Vo
Sandra Sepulveda

Absent · 3

Deonte Harrell
Brandon Taylor
Brenda Gadd

The filed text for this matter has not been published here yet. It is available on Legistar.