Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Regulation Sightseeing Vehicles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers sightseeing-vehicle ordinance after divided testimony; operator and city staff disagree
Summary
Council deferred BL2025-954, a bill to separately regulate seated sightseeing vehicles, after public testimony from a lawyer opposing the change and a representative of Old Town Trolley supporting it; sponsor Councilman Coopin has scheduled stakeholder talks and the bill was sent back to committee for more review.
The Metropolitan Council deferred on first consideration an ordinance (BL2025-954) that would create a standalone regulatory framework for seated sightseeing vehicles (SSVs) in Nashville, sending it back to the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for further review.
At the council public hearing two speakers presented sharply different views. Attorney Gil Schutte urged the council to reject the measure, arguing it “is unnecessary, supported by a single operator, Old Town Trolley, and deemed unnecessary and unhelpful by the Nashville Department of Transportation.” Schutte said Metro is already engaged in litigation over Transportation Licensing Commission rules and told the council that the transportation director, when deposed, said she believed the ordinance should not move forward.
Chris Mader, speaking for Old Town Trolley, said the company has operated hop-on/hop-off, seated tours in Nashville for almost a decade and described the vehicles as distinct from party buses: “We operate on fixed routes, require all passengers to be seated at all times, prohibit alcohol on board, and move tourists between cultural destinations.” He asked the council to adopt a tailored regulatory chapter for SSVs that would clarify enforcement without changing fleet sizes or existing SSV rules.
Councilman Coopin, the bill sponsor and the lead negotiator in committee, said he and planning and transportation staff had worked on a substitute and that he planned a stakeholder meeting to try to reconcile outstanding concerns before the council takes up the bill again. Committee records show Transportation & Infrastructure recommended approval of a substitute version earlier, but the public comment and the director’s deposition prompted Coopin to seek more stakeholder discussion.
Why it matters
The ordinance would separate SSVs from the broader “entertainment transportation vehicle” (ETV) category — historically written for party buses — and would create new permit types and operational rules for seated sightseeing vehicles. Supporters say the change would reduce regulatory confusion and improve enforcement; opponents say the change grants special treatment to a single operator and risks undermining a uniform regulatory approach.
Council action and next steps
- The sponsor moved a one-meeting deferral and rereferral to Transportation & Infrastructure to allow stakeholder talks and technical review. The council approved the deferral and re-referral; no final vote on the ordinance was taken.
- Transportation and Department of Transportation staff will participate in the planned stakeholder meeting; sponsor Coopin asked interested parties to submit concerns before that meeting so the committee can consider them at its next session.
Ending
The council’s deferral keeps the ordinance alive but delayed. Sponsor Coopin said he hopes a committee-level stakeholder process will produce language that can command broader support; opponents urged the council to preserve an existing uniform regulatory approach until the ongoing litigation and the department’s technical concerns are resolved.
