Nashville transit referendum lawsuit goes to trial

Nashville has already been working to implement its transit overhaul — like taking bids from companies to construct new transit centers and seeking a director to oversee the work. But that work has been happening at the same time that a lawsuit challenging the referendum’s legality goes to trial.

When voters passed the $3.1 billion transit referendum in November, they approved a plan that would raise the sales tax by a half-percent to fund things like more frequent bus service, new sidewalks and overhauled traffic signals.

More: Ongoing coverage of the transit referendum

The lawsuit alleges that the inclusion of things like sidewalks doesn’t fall within the definition of “public transit” and renders the project out of compliance with the state law — the IMPROVE Act — that authorizes localities to dedicate taxes to transit. It also questions the plan’s inclusion of prospective federal grants.

The trial begins

Davidson County Chancellor Anne C. Martin heard arguments from both parties Wednesday, as she prepares to issue a decision on whether the referendum follows state law.

The plaintiffs — former Metro Councilmember Emily Evans and the opposition campaign, Committee to Stop an Unfair Tax — were represented by attorney Kirk Clements. The city was represented by Metro Legal attorney Lora Barkenbus Fox and co-counsel Jeff Yarbro.

Michael Briggs, the mayor’s transportation advisor, was the sole witness to take the stand. Briggs talked through the steps Metro took to get the referendum on the ballot, including various public meetings, as well as three readings and subsequent approval by Nashville’s Metro Council.

Arguments heard

Clements, on behalf of the plaintiffs, focused his argument on the state’s definition of “public transit.” This, he claims, does not include things like sidewalks and signals — cornerstones of the city’s plan.

“They’re trying to turn a mass transit system, the definition of a public transit system, into anything that may be connected to or resolved in arriving at a transportation facility or a bus stop,” Clements said. “Unfortunately, that’s not supported by the plain language of the statute.”

“Public transit system” is defined in the IMPROVE Act as “any mass transit system intended for shared passenger transport services to the general public, together with any building, structure, appurtenance, utility, transport support facility, transport vehicles, service vehicles, parking facility, or any other facility, structure, vehicle, or property needed to operate the transportation facility or provide connectivity for the transportation facility to any other non-mass transit system transportation infrastructure, including, but not limited to, interstates, highways, roads, streets, alleys, and sidewalks.”

In his closing argument for Metro, Yarbro pointed out that the sidewalks, signals and safety measures that would be implemented are located specifically around places receiving bus upgrades.

He also argued that it is not possible to develop a mass transit system without improving surrounding structures like sidewalks and signals.

“If you cannot work on the share of spaces where transit vehicles are going to be operating, that sort of defeats the ultimate purpose of the statute,” Yarbro said.

Plaintiffs also took issue with the number attached to the ballot measure. That estimated the project’s capital cost at $3.1 billion. Clements indicated that the city should have presented the “all-in” estimate — closer to $7 billion — which factored in inflation, operating costs and interest payments.

Yarbro defended the initial cost estimate as accurate.

“The most reliable data is the data that we have right now. We know how much asphalt costs right now. We know how much construction costs are right now,” Yarbro said. “In any event, there’s no requirement that this (estimate figure) be included on the ballot.”

The tight timeline

While no ruling was issued Wednesday, Martin said she would do so soon — ideally, before the new transit sales tax begins.

The plaintiffs are hoping to prevent the tax increase from taking effect Feb. 1. If successful, the results of the transit referendum — of which two-thirds of Nashvillians voted in favor — would be voided.

Because of the high stakes and tight timeline, the hearing on the lawsuit was expedited.

The trial began Wednesday. This story will be updated when a ruling is available. This story was last updated at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday.