Nashville MSD board asks town staff to draft ECU intern job description for downtown work

At its April 28, 2025 meeting, the Main Street/Municipal Service District (MSD) board in the Town of Nashville voted 4-2 to ask town staff to draft a job description for a proposed East Carolina University (ECU) internship focused on MSD work and grant-seeking.

The board’s motion instructs town staff to prepare a position description that the MSD board will review before any further decision about hosting an ECU intern or seeking council approval. Board members emphasized that approval of a job description is a first step; any hiring or formal commitment would return to the board and, if appropriate, to the town council.

Why it matters: Board members said the town lacks a dedicated person to pursue grants, coordinate downtown projects and move existing plans toward implementation. Supporters argued a 300-hour internship could provide focused effort to start or advance projects and could “pay for itself” if an intern secures grant funding. Opponents said MSD funds had been spent on other plans in the past with limited results and cautioned against committing MSD resources without clearer guarantees.

Town staff member Sean told the board that ECU interns are often used to advance multi-stage projects and that a single 300-hour placement can lay groundwork that future interns or staffers build on. "If they come in, they get one $10,000 grant, they pay for themselves and then some," Sean said, describing how grants secured by an intern could offset cost. He also said the town could instead host an intern on town-wide projects; to ensure the intern focused on MSD priorities, the job description would need to specify MSD-focused duties.

Parks Director Coy told the board he supports an intern but opposed splitting 300 hours across multiple departments because that would limit the intern’s impact. HR Director Tracy (mentioned by board members) was cited as the town officer who would cooperate on job description and hiring mechanics if the board asked the town to proceed.

Several board members urged a cautious approach. Board member Amy and another member identified as Salit voted against moving forward with drafting a job description, arguing MSD funds and prior plans had not yielded sufficient results and that the MSD should not be the primary funder of an experimental position. Other board members said the MSD lacks anyone currently dedicated to downtown work and that a focused internship could provide useful short-term deliverables (grant searches, outreach, small studies, promotion plans) and create a basis for future funding or staffing.

The board’s motion passed by a recorded voice/hand vote, 4 in favor and 2 opposed. The motion does not authorize hiring or funding; rather, it directs town staff to prepare a draft job description and return it to the MSD board for consideration and a separate vote before any request is advanced to town council.

Board members discussed alternatives such as contracting with professional grant writers or subscribing to grant-notification services through regional councils of governments; those options will remain on the table as the town and MSD evaluate next steps.

Ending: Town staff said they will prepare a draft job description and circulate it to board members; the board will vote again on whether to forward a recommendation to the town council after reviewing that draft.