Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Private Partnerships topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission advances More for Memphis ordinance to third reading after heated public comment

Shelby County Board of Commissioners · December 16, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After an extended public comment period, the Shelby County Board of Commissioners sent a joint city‑county ordinance to a third reading. Supporters said the partnership would coordinate private capital and city/county planning; opponents questioned donor transparency and whether the body would be bound to fund initiatives.

The Shelby County Board of Commissioners moved the proposed More for Memphis joint ordinance to a third reading after nearly an hour of public testimony and detailed commissioner questions about governance and donor commitments. The ordinance would create a public‑private governance structure to coordinate private philanthropic commitments and program implementation in targeted neighborhoods, with an independent fiscal agent and annual reporting back to elected bodies.

Supporters argued the partnership is intended to improve coordination between local government, schools and community groups rather than to compel local taxpayer funding. "The part of this ordinance is really to build greater collaboration," said Jamilica Burke, who identified herself as president of Seeding Success and spoke for More for Memphis. Commission legal staff and More for Memphis representatives said donors who currently have asked to remain anonymous would be publicly disclosed once implementation begins and that the ordinance does not require the county or city to commit funding to any specific initiative. Multiple commissioners pressed organizers for details about the proposed fiscal agent, potential conflicts with existing community grant programs, and whether the school board should be formalized into the governance structure.

Opponents and skeptical residents focused on transparency and accountability. "Reject nontransparency and the seeding success MFM resolution for the public good," said a public commentator criticizing the plan's current level of donor disclosure. Commissioners also debated whether the agreement would unintentionally prioritize outside consultants over local, neighborhood‑based providers. The ordinance was not adopted; it will return for a third reading with editing and additional information requested by commissioners.