An ordinance readopting the Code of The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, prepared by Municipal Code Corporation including supplemental and replacement pages thereof, containing certain ordinances of a general and permanent nature enacted on or before December 17, 2025.

Topics

Transparency & ethics

Introduced: August 18, 2026
Last action: Passed on third reading · August 18, 2026

Sponsors

Tom Cash Lead

AI summary — check the source Spot-checked in audit

Council readopts Metro's code of laws on the consent agenda, with no debate

BL2026-1496 is routine housekeeping: it formally readopts Metro Nashville's Code of laws as published by Municipal Code Corporation, including the updated and replacement pages covering ordinances passed through December 17, 2025. It was listed as agenda item 107 on the consent agenda, the batch of non-controversial items council votes on all at once (t=4971s). No council member asked to pull it off consent, and no one spoke about the bill itself. The presiding officer took a motion and a second, called for ayes, and announced that all consent agenda items had passed (t=5195s-5200s).

What it does

Officially re-adopts the Metropolitan Government's Code — the compiled book of Nashville's general, permanent laws — in its updated printed form, including supplements and replacement pages. It does not change any policy; it keeps the published code current with ordinances enacted on or before December 17, 2025.

What happened, in plain language

The packet records the action as 'passed on third reading' — third reading is the final of three council votes, so the ordinance is now approved by council. No individual votes are recorded in the packet: the votes list is empty, and the transcript shows it was approved as part of a single voice vote on the whole consent agenda ('All in favor say aye,' followed by 'council has passed all items on the consent agenda,' t=5198s-5200s), so no member's individual position on this bill was recorded. Having cleared third reading, the ordinance goes to the mayor for signature under Metro's normal process.

On the floor · 5 points

Context

There was no debate on this bill. The presiding officer read it out as agenda item 107 on the consent agenda and asked whether any items needed to be pulled off; no one asked to remove this one.

a speaker Watch 1:22:51
Context

The requests to pull items off consent during this stretch were all about other legislation, not this bill — one member asked to remove item 16 for the purpose of an abstention.

a council member Watch 1:23:21
Context

Asked to pull agenda items 73 and 74 (and later 75) off the consent agenda — again, separate items, not this ordinance.

Joy Styles Watch 1:23:43
Context

Asked to pull agenda item 39, a separate resolution, off the consent agenda.

Zulfat Suara Watch 1:25:16
Context

Confirmed all committee reports were in for the remaining consent items, then took a motion and second and called the vote: 'All in favor say aye.'

a speaker Watch 1:26:35

What the AI is unsure about

The packet's metadata flags are inconsistent with the transcript: voice_vote is listed as false and the votes array is empty, yet the transcript clearly shows an aye voice vote on the consent agenda covering this item, and no roll call. There is no official action_text in the packet, so the description of what happens next relies on the standard meaning of 'passed on third reading' rather than packet text. The transcript slice for this item is almost entirely consent-agenda housekeeping about OTHER agenda items (16, 39, 40, 73-76, 88, 9), so most of the window is adjacent business, not discussion of this bill. The transcript is auto-diarized and rough: the mm:ss labels do not line up with the t= seconds values, some speaker names are garbled in the text, and at least one line attributed to SPEAKER_01 appears to actually be the clerk answering. Speakers labeled SPEAKER_NN are not named here.

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

Passed on third reading August 18, 2026 Metropolitan Council

See the full August 18, 2026 agenda →

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