Good afternoon, everyone.

I call to order the City Council of Chattanooga for Tuesday, August 26, 2025.

Like to invite Councilman Harvey to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation.

Thank you everyone for being here today.

We have a special presentation today in the form of a public hearing.

Oh my goodness, I apologize.

Let me hit your button, sir.

You'd like to do an invocation.

I would like to do an invocation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Join me in prayer.

Father, we thank you for this opportunity to be in this beautiful city that you've given us.

Thank you for uh friends and family.

Thank you for the blessings of life that you've given us.

Would we pray for our first responders that you would go before them, keep them safe, bless them and their families.

We thank you, Lord, for uh their service to keep us safe as citizens of this great city.

Um Lord, I pray for uh for unity that uh no matter what we do here today and in the years following that we would be unified uh not only as Chattanoogans but as Americans, uh let us remember how good and how pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity.

We pray these things in Christ's name.

Amen.

Thank you, sir.

Okay, well, I am happy now to turn this chair over to Madam Budget Chair Rakita Gotley to lead our hearing.

Good afternoon.

Yes, it's taxes, yes, it's taxing, but hey, life goes on.

Okay.

All right, so we are here for our public hearing.

Um so good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for being here today.

I appreciate you taking the time to participate in this public hearing.

Uh, as a reminder, this is a public hearing regarding the fiscal year 2526 budget amendment and councilman Henderson and Davis' alternate proposal to exceed the certified tax rate to a dollar sixty-nine.

Um and so with that, we will start out with a presentation from Councilman Henderson.

Um, so I'll bring this public hearing to order.

Okay.

Good afternoon, council.

Good to be here with you this afternoon.

We are here for a public hearing today to discuss the alternate version of the FY26 budget amendment and the intent to exceed the certified tax rate to $1.69.

And Madam Vice Chair Hill, it would be my intentions this afternoon to get this alternate version on the floor as a first amendment to item 8A.

So what increasing the property tax rate from $1.55 to $1.69 means for Chattanoogans.

Number one, it will generate about $15 million of new revenue a year at a median cost for residents of about $12 a month.

Now read my lips.

So where is the money going?

All of that previous page, the uh $5 million set aside the $15 million in increased revenue and the three million dollars of cuts uh total 23 million dollars, $9 million of which will go to the fire to the police department.

Uh change of $9 million, and then fire department receives $14 million increase, goes straight into each department.

Uh $9 million and $14 million.

This page, whoa, I hit up wrong button somewhere.

This page illustrates on your left-hand side here, uh it highlighted in yellow.

These departments receive no cuts in funding whatsoever.

Uh so they they had they remained the same as the FY26 current budget.

The to the right shows departments that were cut, but funding is still increased from FY25.

So if you'll look in the blue, all of those departments did receive cuts, but they are still funded at an increased level from the FY25 budget.

And this is the two slides combined showing you the departments.

Um that uh out of 16 of the 21 departments either had an increase in funding, no cuts to funding or funded at a higher level than last year's budget.

So this is just kind of a highlight of uh what affects each department sort of had.

So the blue had uh cuts, but were still funded at a level higher than FY25.

Our last slide, and uh Madam Chair told me I had three minutes.

How am I doing on time?

You're doing great.

Thank you.

So our that'll bring our total operational budget expenditures to uh 360 million two hundred and ninety-two thousand three hundred and forty dollars.

Madam Chair, that concludes my presentation.

All right, then thank you so much, Councilman Henderson.

We appreciate the presentation.

Um, and I know you're gonna make your way back up here.

So with that, um we'll have we will hear from the public and those who wish to speak.

Each person who wishes to speak will have two minutes, and we will observe a one hour limit at the end of that hour.

We will reevaluate if additional time is needed, um, and that'll be uh upon the council's request.

So at this point, please begin lining up behind the podium.

Yes.

The hallway for your block to speak as well.

So I don't know.

Do they need to come in at this fire marshal or fire department?

Do they need to come in?

Or they can just stay out.

I guess maybe we'll ask you, thank you.

Maybe once you speak that you exit the building or exit this room so that others can come in.

They can come in.

They're coming in, they're coming in to live.

Yeah, they come in.

Thank you, Councilman Henderson.

Um, so please begin lining up behind the podium.

Uh as the city attorney, he's gonna read our rules.

Um, and when it's your turn, we ask that you state your name and the city council district you represent.

If you don't know the city council district, please state your address because we need that for our records.

All right, and city attorney field.

Uh yes.

This is the public hearing in connection with the FY26 budget alternate proposal to exceed the certified tax rate to a dollar sixty-nine.

Uh based on this hearing, uh, the speaker, any speaker that wishes to address the council can only be recognized up front at the microphone that's provided for that purpose, can't have more than three minutes, excuse me, two minutes to speak here within the time limits that have been provided here thus far by the chair.

Uh, the speaker can address the council only upon matters within their legislative and quasi judicial authority and not on matters which are not under their authority or regulated by other governmental bodies or agencies.

Do not use any vulgar or obscene language nor use the floor to personally attack or personally denigrate others, and address your comments to the council as a whole in this matter and not make comments directed towards individual council members.

Lastly, do not engage in disorderly conduct or disrupting a public meeting, which is prohibited by Tennessee law, and someone commits that offense if a person substantially obstructs or interferes with the meeting by physical action or verbal utterance with the intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting or gathering.

Having stated those rules, please go ahead, ma'am.

Good afternoon, council, Madam Chair, thank you all for letting us be here today.

My name is Leanne Wiles.

I live at 1309 Woodhill Drive in District 2.

Um, first I want to thank all of our police and fire forces.

I appreciate you and fully support competitive raises, much needed police vehicles, and the new fire station 21 and ladder truck.

I'm here today in opposition to today's counter proposal.

Mayor Kelly's plan gets us where we need to be in one step, ensuring that we don't underfund essential services.

The counter proposal makes some headway, but it leaves a 33 million dollar gap, cutting deeply into public safety, economic growth, and community development.

That means officers without the equipment they need, slower fire response, stalled projects in our neighborhood, and the loss of 311.

The sponsors of the counter proposal said for months during televised budget sessions that taxes would need to go up incrementally over several years with their proposal, yet the written plan does not mention that.

Instead, it forces us back here year after year without set changes, spending months again debating while the city can't plan ahead.

And I feel that that uncertainty is wasteful, it's unsustainable, and it's unfair to staff and citizens alike.

Taxes are painful, but underfunding our safety and neighborhoods is far more harmful, especially for families already struggling.

A city cannot thrive on underfunding.

This is about stewardship, and we can either responsibly fund the city we need today, or we can underfund it and pay for it tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is B.

Tabagayavaji, and I live in District 9.

Thank you to the council for allowing me to speak today.

Mayor Kelly's compromise budget proposal of 1.9 ensures that essential government services remain fully funded, even in the face of record inflation and skyrocketing costs for critical infrastructure.

By contrast, this counter proposal would slash hundreds of core services, 311 to be exact, that Chattanoogans rely on every single day.

As both a taxpayer of Chattanooga and as an as a student of UTC, I am frustrated and deeply concerned about services being stripped away from responsible citizens who deserve better.

Eliminating job training programs and defunding violence prevention initiatives will not save us money, but they will instead fuel higher rates of crime, stall economic growth, and make our communities less safe.

It is also no secret who would be harmed most by Henderson's plan.

By cutting programs that disproportionately serve black and brown neighborhoods while largely granting a tax cut to the wealthiest residents in Chattanooga.

This budget represents a deliberate divestment in Chattanooga's most vulnerable communities, and that is unacceptable.

Chattanoogans are tired of being overlooked, dismissed, and left behind.

Our city council must remember that their duty is to serve us, not the wealthy few.

For that reason, I strongly urge the council to adopt Mayor Kelly's responsible budget compromise and reject the reckless, short-sighted plan that was proposed and put forward by Councilman Henderson.

Thank you, and I yield my time.

Thank you.

My name is Bob Geyer, and I reside at 4143 Quarryview, which is in District 1.

I serve as the communicator for the Friends of Mountain Creek, which is the 501c3 striving for a better outcome for the Mountain Creek community.

FOMC's mission enjoys the endorsement of 5,000 neighbors in Chattanooga.

I have received messages from neighbors about the impact today's decision may have on them.

Some get by on fixed incomes and find home ownership costs becoming daunting.

I believe the taxpayers agree that our police and firefighter compensation must be competitive with peers in the region, and that's the end of that story.

I attended last week's city council meeting to learn about the basis of the mayor's proposed tax rate.

I didn't learn much, but I witnessed how very few taxpayers got a word in edgewise.

Since the last appraisal in 2021, the average assessed value of homes in Chattanooga has increased 57%.

The bottom line is that city tax bills this year will increase by either 20% under the 1.69 plan or 38% using the mayor's proposed rate over last year's bill.

The latter will be a huge hit to homeowners and ultimately to renters in the city.

In contrast, your county tax bills will remain close to what they were last year because the rate has dropped to 1.51, countering the 57% assessment rise.

You have to ask yourself, why has inflation not set the county back?

The sensible rationale of Henderson's alternate plan is to task the city council with gathering data on anticipated inflation, anticipated growth, and revenue, and potential salary increases that build that could build an informed strategic plan instead of a one-time moonshot.

I requested this council very closely to consider how this decision will impact our fixed and lower income seniors and actually all Chattanooga's who are finding it difficult to get by.

Consider also that holding the line at 1.69 helps limited income seniors to freeze that property taxes at a significantly lower rate.

Thank you.

Thank you for um allowing me to speak.

I'm Sherry Kitts, and I'm in District 3 in Jeff's district.

Uh I live in Hickson.

Um I think my I'm a little different here, and I'm just throwing away my notes.

But uh my problem is um I would like to see, for instance, I I want to see a good justification.

I'm an engineer, so I want to see what millage rate translates to a thousand dollars, how much the budget is based on those millage rates right now, how much increase they want, and I love our firemen and policemen.

Thank you so much.

You're so good.

So um uh so how one increase you want for them, and I have no problem with that.

Uh, and how much millied that'll cost in as an increase, so I can understand what these increases mean.

And um, and also uh I I do have a little bit of problem with the I mean I don't know whether this is still in there or not.

These are the things that go through our heads when we don't see a good justification for things.

Is some of this going to the ballpark?

You know, it's some of this what's hidden in this thing.

So I um so I'd like to see every uh all the pieces of it and main things, you know.

We don't want all the little details, but uh, because we can't understand all that for sure anyway.

But we and I thank you for letting me talk about this because I would like to see those good justifications and things I don't like to see or paying for somebody else's down payment on a house, a mortgage or something.

And if you do want something like that, which I kind of heard out of Tim Kelly stuff, what why is that better than say subsidized housing or trying to encourage uh builders to make better housing that is affordable?

So um, I think that's my main issues.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for being sharing.

Hi, my name's Kim Murphy.

I live in District 2, and um I want to say I support uh Councilman Hembr-Henderson's proposal, and I urge you to consider the following as you determine between the two.

Property owners recently received notice of reappraisal with increases of over uh 60 to 100 and whatever percent.

The cumulative inflation that the city reports on the slides, Mayor Kelly sent out, are the same thing affecting all of us.

We are all struggling with insurance, utilities, services, foods, all of those things.

The difference is we don't have a property tax base to go after to get more money to pay those bills.

We have to make adjustments.

We have to find new insurance providers, find new ways to use our money wisely.

According to the 2024 city audit, there's 153 million dollars in discretionary funds.

Why are we not using that?

If a homeowner had a discretionary bucket of money over here, guess what?

They have a roof that needs replacing, they go to that and they do it.

They have something that needs to be fixed, that's where they get it.

Anyway, the money one money everybody keeps talking about is not the city's money, it's the people's money.

It's the taxpayers' money.

City government should consider every other option before they tax the payer, this taxpayer who's already being stretched to their max.

If there are to be tax increases, the city must find deficiencies that will reduce city spending.

The reappraised value is not liquid assets to any of us.

It's uh an unrealized gain that you're assuming is money.

Until we sell that, that's not additional money to people.

Anyway, the current property tax model needs to be fixed.

Oh, so um I moved it from California, a financially mismanaged country, company, uh state, sorry.

But they do one thing right it's property, property taxes.

They the value is set at the time of a sale, it goes up every year, two percent, so the homeowner knows what's gonna happen next year, the city knows what they're gonna get next year, and it doesn't change until you sell it.

And so when property values are going up like they just did, there's no big surprise.

That new owner's getting hit with that.

Anyway, I'm gonna urge you.

Sorry, I'm done.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, good afternoon.

My name is Mike Hickman.

I am from District 2.

Thank you to the city council for representing us.

You all do a great job, and I know you're all tireless advocates for your district.

Thank you to our first responders who put themselves at risk for us on a regular basis.

You certainly deserve the highest pay that our city can afford.

I'm here as an advocate for Chattanoigans who directly fund this budget and to clarify actual numbers.

Any millage rate above 1.55, as earlier mentioned, is a tax increase.

A 169 is about 9% higher.

But city spend doctors have been telling us a 1.93 is good.

That's a 25% tax increase over where we are today.

The mayor misled us early on saying he needs more money to combat inflation.

In fact, inflation has only grown 23% since 2021.

However, at a 1.93, the city budget will have increased 46% since Mayor Kelly took office.

400 million dollars, 100% higher than inflation.

This type of unaccountable spending is reckless and irresponsible.

I would ask you to look at your people and your constituents to ask if they need to give you their money or if we can work better in terms of how we approach the public in a responsible, direct, and transparent way to seek their property tax money that is a direct impact to their livelihood.

Distinguished council members, it's your duty to balance the needs of the community against financial stake borne by Chattanoogans.

Show the mayor you will not tolerate intimidation in carrying out your responsibility.

Vote no to the mayor's proposals.

Thank you.

Council members, Chattanoogans, I stand here tonight not only as a taxpayer but as a firm believer in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

This council begins every meeting with a prayer.

Honesty and transparency should follow.

Instead, people, a lot of them bring lies and manipulation.

The Bible says in Proverbs 11.1 a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight.

And Isaiah 10 1.

Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees.

These words apply here tonight.

Mayor Kelly and some media claim this is a tax decrease.

The truth is it's a massive increase.

Even voices being high lotted like Pastor Ladd sit on the state advisory committee.

That is not an independent citizen.

It's a government tied to administrate this administration.

Others compare Chattanooga's tax rate to larger cities, pretending that means we pay less.

That is manipulation.

When you add city and county together, Chattanooga will be at $3.44 per hundred.

Far above Nashville, our state's capital, by the way.

The numbers don't lie, even when the messaging does.

We've heard officers work six jobs, but but working a few hours at a nightclub is not the same as citizens going to a full-time job, two full-time jobs trying to scrape by.

That is the reality of the people that y'all represent.

That's why tonight I asked you to set the rate at the state's mandated 155, then Paul's hold meetings and openly inform citizens that yes, taxes will increase.

Let there be honest debate.

Do we raise taxes for police and firefighters who do deserve it, by the way?

Um, or trim government fat instead of breaking taxpayers further.

And let me be clear if this bill is forced through, I will begin a petition to recall Mayor Kelly and any council members who support it.

This isn't politics, it's truth.

We began tonight with prayer.

Let us end with honesty.

The Lord delights in truth, but detest the seat.

Thank you.

Right, sir.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, sir.

What's your name in council district?

Um I stated last week it was district three.

I was wrong, it's district one.

Daniel Brad.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Braden.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Justin Cole.

I'm the president of the IBPO.

I'm a police officer with the Chattanooga Police Department, but most importantly, I'm a taxpaying citizen of Chattanooga in District 6.

I'm speaking here today in support of the mayor's proposal.

As we all know, the city is way behind on comp sitting first responders, but that's not the only area we need to address.

The city needs to place a desperate emphasis on infrastructure.

I primarily primarily patrol in districts six and four.

And as much as most of us are aware, Chattanooga recently made national headlines due to recent flooding on the interstates and other areas.

However, I can say with certainty that any time we get a good rain, Gumbarrel Road near Chewy's and East Brennan Road near Jenkins Road floods.

Traffic lights are constantly malfunctioning, which creates even more strain and first responders in times in these areas.

We're stuck blocking roads and pulling people out of their cars because of roads that citizens are paying taxes to drive on are not being adequately maintained.

Public works takes upwards of 30 minutes to several hours of respond to trees falling across roads because trees that should have been cut or trimmed were not.

This is no fault of public works either.

They are short staffed and underfunded as well.

Gun barrel road leading into East Brainerd Road intersection is crumbling in on itself due to the lack of recent paving.

Mayor's Kelly proposal provides us with an increased budget patrol vehicles as well.

Officers are having to wait two to three weeks to get their vehicle service because the department lacks spare cars.

Our current assignment cars have over 100,000 miles and are constantly falling apart.

In 10 months, the largest academy the police department has seen in over five years will be hitting the streets, and we will not have enough cars to put them in.

So council members, I ask you to support Mayor Kelly's Mayor Kelly's proposal.

I'm asking as an officer who sees apartment complexes and subdivisions being squeezed in everywhere they can be placed while the roads that lead to them begin to resemble lyrics and country music songs.

So don't support the proposal for us as first responders.

Do it for the citizens who have to take a 20-minute detour because another tree is falling on Gad Road.

And do it for the citizens who have to go up the Morris Hill Road because East Brenner Road, East of Jenkins is flooded again.

Do it for the citizens who have to sit in traffic at Hickory Valley for 30 minutes because the light was malfunctioning again and there wasn't enough officers to help direct traffic.

Do it for better Chattanooga.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, distinguished council members, Anna Galladay, District 8.

I'll be clear.

I don't want a tax increase.

I don't believe our residents can bear the brunt of these increases, especially those in historically marginalized neighborhoods where the reality of home ownership was the kind of generational success that could have never been imagined, and yet they did it anyway.

But what I want less is for our community services to be impacted.

What I want less is for our homeless friends to feel the hurt of potential cuts.

What I want less is for neighborhood services to be cut and for our neighborhood associations to ultimately pay the price.

Let's be honest.

Neither proposal was brought forward with the kind of intention that has made the greater community confident.

One opens the door for blanket percentage cuts that harm the least of these.

The other is asking for a higher percentage because this moment cracked the door for it.

All this to say, please vote no on the alternative proposal.

But do so because if our property taxes are going to raise anyway, which they will, it is important that the sustainability of our city services counterbalance the harm that will come from a higher property bill.

Finally, and I'm begging, include the public in the budget conversation.

Do not wait for public comment from this microphone.

Do not wait for your constituents to call or email you.

This fall, months before the next year's budget is proposed.

Identify two to three citizens from each district that are willing to represent their neighbors.

Curate a public a people's budget committee to canvas poll and host conversations and then work alongside the administration with needs-based review.

We deserve input on the menu items, not just on the Yelp review.

Good afternoon.

My name is Janice Gooden.

I'm from the Great District 8.

I'm not quite sure which side to support.

But I do appreciate the willingness of council to look at other options, not just accepting you know what is presented.

I don't think that local government can do it all.

No government can do it all.

But we shouldn't rely on taxes totally to make up a deficit.

I think we need to consider partnerships, which can be nonprofits, philanthropy.

Um they can bring expertise, deal capacity, and possibly even bring some funds.

I appreciate the idea of lowering the tax rate so it's not all on the uh citizens, but um just not too sure, you know, what that level should be.

My biggest concern has been about the process, it looks faulty.

Uh proposing cuts without a concrete plan.

That's one of my concerns.

Also, is it a sustainable plan?

So, what happens next year?

So, in the process of your decision making, how will you come to your decision?

When you're representing your constituents, how do you make your decisions?

Is it based on the loudest voice, the highest number of people that turn out?

We need data, we need some way to track back to see what is the best route to take.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Janet.

Good afternoon.

My name is Krista Manorino, and I'm the executive director of local services for signal centers.

We are a rather large nonprofit serving the entire city, the county, and the state.

We have locations in districts five, six, and eight.

First of all, thank you all for your careful consideration of this matter.

We we know it's a difficult one, and we appreciate everything that you're doing.

Also, as a good shepherd of taxpayer dollars from the nonprofit side, signal centers relies on city services and healthy partnerships, allowing us to serve the children and adults that we do, many of them with disabilities, um, and we help families be healthier.

We work with numerous community centers, including the library, to share the love of reading to our youngest readers.

In fact, just two weeks ago, our adult day clients visited Brainerd's uh fire station and had a ball.

They learned about fire safety, and they got to talk with the firemen and women there.

We thank all the first responders for your good work.

We support Mayor Kelly's budget proposal because we know it will make a positive difference in sustaining the quality of life, safety, and opportunity that make Chattanooga the great community that it is.

Working with so many vulnerable populations, we want to ensure that every child and their families have the best chance for a better future.

Thank you again for your careful consideration of what an impact this tax increase could make to all citizens and their quality of life and safety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk about something that's often gets overlooked.

The people behind the badge, the ones behind the wheel of that fire truck that you see all too often.

Every day, first responders put on their uniform knowing they'll face situations most could never imagine.

Violence, tragedy, the constant unknown.

They don't get to clock out of that responsibility, and yet too many of them are being forced to clock out of this profession with the city altogether.

Why?

The pay isn't keeping up with the sacrifice.

Officers are leaving, not because they've lost their calling to serve, but because they can't afford to stay.

When good first responders leave, it doesn't hurt them.

It hurts the s hurts the safety and security of every single community member in person sitting in every one of these seats that depend on these responders.

Some of them have suggested some have suggested a lesser tax option, but let's be honest.

That doesn't solve the real problem.

It doesn't help us replace patrol cars, fire trucks that break down, often more times than they run.

It doesn't bring back the personnel that we've already lost or attract the new recruits we desperately need for both fire and police.

It doesn't allow for that top-notch technology the city has grown to be accustomed to.

In the end, just a band-aid on the wound that needs stitches.

I'll tell you this from an FTO who helps train the next patrol officer on your streets.

If we want to keep our neighborhoods safe, if we want experienced compassion officers guiding the next generation, we have to show them that their sacrifice matters.

A fair and competitive wage along with top-notch equipment isn't a reward.

It's respect and a necessity.

It's the acknowledgement that the men and women who protect us every day deserve stability for themselves and their families, along with equipment that works and the backup they need.

So let's not wait until we've lost more good officers and firefighters to another department and have to dig ourselves back out of a hole again as we did in 2020.

Show us that the responders of Chat, the first responders of Chattanooga that the city council has our back and invests in us now.

Invest in the city.

Let's not make this an every five year problem as a current as it's currently going to be.

Let's fix this this time around with Mayor's Mayor Kelly's tax return.

Thank you.

And could you state your name and district?

Officer Blevins.

All right.

Office of first thing.

Right.

Right.

Thank you, right.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chris Dooley.

I'm in District 1.

I support Chip Henderson's 9% increase.

I am an old fireman.

I am an old uh uh also I'm an old police officer three times.

So I think the salaries for the police officers and firefighters ought to be up to par.

However, I think the city needs to streamline or reduce their expenses rather than raise taxes too much.

One reason it is, as you've already heard, there is a burden on fixed income people.

I'm the president of the Horse Creek Farm Subdivision, and I've been contacted by people that live there.

They're mostly retirees, they're mostly people that are on fixed incomes.

They're very concerned.

They see a millage change, and then they also see that they don't have an income that's going to balance that out.

They are rightfully concerned about that, but you already have heard that.

But what bothers me the most when I talk to these folks is that people don't feel that the city council or the mayor is listening to them and that they have a voice in the government.

And so they think it's just gonna just be pushed through because the mayor wants it to happen.

And that's one of the reasons I'm here today.

I've seen little evidence that the mayor has done things to try to streamline the programs or to reduce expenses.

Since I retired in 2013, I work on a ranch in Montana for my cousin.

That ranch has been in place since 1918.

And we don't have any taxes to increase, and we don't have any money that we can print.

We have to make do with what we have.

And so for over a hundred years, we've been able to do that.

And I don't understand why, having been a servant of the at the city level, the county level, the state level, and also a federal government, how we can't do the same thing that we have to do on the ranches.

I think that the uh city has not shown that they have done the best they can to use the taxpayer money uh wisely.

All right, Mr.

Dooley, that's your two minutes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

My name is Eddie Owensby.

I'm from District Three.

Uh Mr.

Davis.

I represent the senior citizen in Chattanooga.

I I'm saying that what you are trying to do is trying to run off all the senior citizens in Chattanooga.

Here we turn around, we work all our lives to pay for our houses, and we pay our taxes on a regular basis.

But now you're getting to a point where you're raising taxes where the senior citizen cannot pay the bill.

I don't I I think somebody needs to start listening to the senior citizens around here, or are you is it that the city just wants to run off all the senior citizens?

I risk my case.

Hello, my name is Dr.

Joshua Tyler, and I am from District 6.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for taking the time to be here.

Whether or not the tax rate is set at $1.69 or $1.93, I believe that we all agree that our honored servicemen and women deserve fair pay for their invaluable work.

The reason this process was contentious is because of this.

Chattanoogans are fatigued by the cost of living.

In 2015, according to the ACS one year surveys, the median household price was 151,000 and the median mortgage, which is 568 dollars.

In 2020, it was 597 dollars.

Today that mortgage is 1,700, nearly triple in just five years, to keep the same level of affordability ratio as 2015.

Today that mortgage is $1,700, nearly triple in just five years, to keep the same level of affordability ratio as 2015, a household would have to make $121,000 a year.

This is almost double the current median household income.

Response could be just buy a starter home, but the number of resident-owned properties that are affordable at median household income drop from 37% of housing units to 17% of housing units in just eight years.

There is simply not enough for affordable housing that reflects median household income.

The affordability crisis is driving people in away.

Since 2020, Chattanooga has lost 8% of its young adult population.

Young adults can't afford to build a future here.

This is unsustainable for a city known for being one of the best cities to raise a family.

And the effect and the effects extend beyond families.

In the past five months alone, we lost Pax Breweryum, Ernest Chinese, Naked River Brewing Company, Exile, and Slicksburgers, all from Main Street due to rising rents.

Even with the salary increase, a police officer would have to have a decade of service and a spouse making $40,000 to be for affording a medium price home.

And a firefire would need six years in a dual income household.

This is not sustainable.

I, along with Chattanooga, welcome fair pay for our public servants, but the next priority going forward must be to bring down the cost of home ownership.

Right now, 53% of housing units are owned by investors.

That means that they will never be owned, only rented.

Home ownership is the cornerstone of the American dream, and I implore the council, restore the American dream here in Chattanooga.

Hi, I'm Emerson Birch.

I'm in District 9.

And thank you for hearing from the public.

I'm here to support data that turns into information that you can use.

So they started asking me, well, what does this mean?

Created a dumb little spreadsheet, and we were manually comp doing people's calculations.

Started looking at council presentations, looking at what results I was getting from those spreadsheets manual thing, and I was like, these numbers don't match.

And then I started looking at the byline, and I was like, oh, this is only for primary residents' homes.

They took out all commercial, all duplexes, all multiplexes, all uh any single family home that's rented, it's less than half of the parcels in our property role are in those presentations.

I sent you a 14-page, unfortunately, I got kind of like cuckoo on Sunday morning, and I love analysis.

So I sent you this insane presentation or report that goes into the details of what the distribution is for the property tax impact.

We've got two pieces here that I really want you to think about before decision is made.

One is the pure dollar amount.

If people, you know, we've got to put this like 42% of Chattanoogans make less than $50,000.

We've got to think about people.

But if we're looking at this and we're looking at just percentages, that's something that you account for with people who don't have money.

If you're if your bills are going up 30%, 50%, 228% on some of these, that's a significant thing that we need to plan for.

If it's just a pure dollar amount and you're fine financially, that's cool.

But ultimately, um you don't need to trust my report.

You need to demand better information and make better decisions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Edward Hewitt, Ron's district here.

Um, and I think we've lost the plot of all of this.

You know, county came in, they assessed all the properties, they raised them up, the city, or sorry, the state looked at that and they said, Whoa, that's a lot.

We need to do something for the people of Hamilton County.

So they were like, yo, we need to set this milletry way lower.

And County was like, cool, great.

City is like, no, this isn't cool with me.

We got to do something about it.

But to be clear, the 2.25 is supposed to, by the state, equal the 1.55.

So anything above that is in fact a raise or an increase on the taxes.

In fact, the 1.55 is already putting an additional $5 million, which somebody has to pay for.

So that means that somebody's taxes are increasing already at the 1.55.

So, what I urge you guys to do, because you know, I've been sitting here, we we're hearing all sorts of beautiful things from all sorts of people here, a lot of shills, a lot of residents, some officers that may or may not even live here because they didn't give their address.

If you're not paying taxes, I don't know why you're not up here talking.

So the working class people, they're struggling to be here.

They're struggling, they can't make time to come out here and talk about this stuff, and it's complicated.

I don't know what I'm talking about, okay?

But it seems to me that we could just give the police five million dollars, leave it at the 155, and they would get a little bit of a raise, and the taxes would stay, quote unquote, equalized by the state.

Or alternatively, we could raise it to the 168 or some other number that's lower than the 199, give the officers some money, and it's not fully funded for the raises that they want, but it's something we can make compromises.

It's not A or B.

You guys have the power to choose.

You don't just have to choose mayor or chip.

Thank you very much and have a great night.

Thank you.

My name's Jakir Rasheed, I'm District 5.

Uh, my understanding is the city council passed the budget already that doesn't include any decreases in services.

Am I correct?

Yes.

So we said we'll come back and we will include the raises for the police and the fire department.

That's what I think we ought to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for letting us speak to you.

Um, this is my very first time in a city council meeting.

I haven't prepared a speech, and I'm not eloquent like some of these other people are.

But I heard a wonderful, well, sort of discouraging, wonderful summation of the impact of uh these higher tax rates.

Uh retired woman spoke at a district three town hall, and um she chose to work as a substitute teacher, and as we all know, the demand for teachers and substitutes is massive and it can hardly be met.

And she's willing to work for just a small amount in order to cover her costs.

But now that this increase options are coming out, she said she will most likely need to leave her substitute teaching position and get a job making more money, like McDonald's, even.

So there are problems that are real for the people that are facing these increases.

I also reaffirm what some of these other people have said about um the cost of home ownership, keeping in mind that when these rates go up, homeownership will be less affordable.

If you think it's hard for people to find buy a home, they're um find home ownership and a place to live as it is now.

When you increase the property taxes, it's just gonna be harder.

So I I don't think that anything you've chosen to do is irresponsible.

I am very impressed with this substitute proposal, a uh $1.69 proposal uh of uh Mr.

Henderson, because these people spent a lot of time, and if you watch their deliberations, they deliberated closely and they did a lot of research, and they're giving discretion to the people who lead the departments.

So they're not saying you must cut this person or this program.

They're saying here, look at your departments and be responsible.

I would really love to have the city council approve that alternate budget.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, ma'am.

Ma'am, excuse me, ma'am.

I'm sorry, ma'am.

I'm sorry, you didn't state your name in the street.

Jan Purdy, District Three.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

City Council.

Hello.

My name is Curtis Lancaster.

I'm from District 5.

I the uh tax increase is gonna affect me, but I'm 100% with Mayor Kelly rate plan because as a veteran and have served this country, I think our first responders deserve to pay increase, and we deserve to have our roads fixed.

And that's when they're looking at both plans, that's the best plan.

I hope the child would do the same.

And I would support, like I said, 100%.

All right, thank you, Ms.

Lanka.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jack Thompson, president of the Chinese Firefox Association, local 820.

Our office is in District 6.

The two proposals are not the same.

Mayor Kelly's proposal either directly or indirectly supports public safety because it's more than just pay.

For one, paving paved roads reduces response time for first responders.

It reduces wear and tear on our apparatus and our patrol cars.

It reduces wear and tear on the body of our first responders.

Two homeless homeless prevention will reduce the number of calls that our fire and police respond to on a daily basis.

I've been told, what about next year?

Next year is not a good option.

Next year delays the build of construction of new police cars that takes a year now to be able to get on the street from when we order them.

And over 600 days that it takes for a new fire truck.

To train and equip a firefighter takes seven months.

To train and equip a police officer takes a little over five months.

Take action now.

Vote yes for Mayor Kelly's proposal.

It's the only choice.

Thank you.

I think Jello again.

Uh Keith Lyles, Vice President Chad Newger Firefighter Association.

I'm gonna try to place something for you.

If I've got it queued up, it'll be awesome.

If I don't, I'm just gonna turn it off and uh we'll go a different route.

Um August 12, 2025.

I have one 31 under the water.

We're gonna be a rescue.

One person under the water road at home.

21.

What's not included in that, because I only have two minutes is the well over five minutes that she was asking for help.

Uh now it's two weeks ago.

Um she was begging for help over the radio.

They were sending police units, they had 50 people that were trying to bypass their their cordon off area.

Uh they were riding three that day, which the majority of firefighter fire trucks in the city are staffed with three, even though our our optimal staffing is five, but we ride with three.

Um the next available company for them to come help is at Moore and Brainerd Road.

That's my station, and we are second due to 21s.

Uh Councilman Henderson, I love you.

Your proposal does not have help for for ladder 21 out there.

Um, I could I could play another instance for you of a May Day call on Concord that happened in 2020.

Um, once again, staffed with three same crew.

Uh Captain Smith called for the May Day when she missed one firefighter, they're going in to make a rescue.

That firefighter was laying on top of the body of a nine-year-old shielding him from the heat.

And it didn't work.

Uh, and he cut they had to call him in May Day because he was missing.

Once again, their help was more in Brainerd Road.

Um we need more firefighters on our trucks, but we need that truck specifically.

So thank you guys.

All right, thank you.

Murray.

All right.

Marie Mutt District 6.

For 30 years, every mayor has sold us the same lie.

Growth will pay for itself.

Tourism, VW, the aquarium, gentrification.

They said it would trickle down.

Where is it?

If growth is so great, why is the city broke?

Why do we need another tax increase?

For poor and African American residents, growth has meant one thing, and that's displacement.

First, you lose your home, then you're told to pay more taxes.

And then we see pastors, Dr.

Terry Ladd and Dr.

Ernest Reed standing with the mayor.

They don't even live in Chattanooga.

Their churches pay respectively eight and nine dollars a year in stormwater fees while their congregations bear the burden.

No skin in the game, yet they show up to bless the higher taxes on the people they don't even want to live with.

Hmm.

That's not ministry, that's politics at the beck and call of City Hall.

This tax hike is not about city employees whatsoever.

This is a cover-up, a bailout for years of fiscal mismanagement.

You can raise taxes today, but you can't tax your way out of corruption, bad deals, and decades of selling the city off to developers.

And personally, if they don't want to listen to us, if they want to vote for a chip or the mayor's plan, don't argue with them.

We can put it on the ballot as the people that we want metro government, meaning that we consolidate all of this BS and we pay one tax every year for all of the services.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Aaron Morrier.

I'm in District 9.

I do not like public speaking, so being here is very uh important for me.

Uh, I am a social worker with health care.

I've been doing this in this city for about 10 years.

So I have been in plenty of people's homes, seniors and disabled in probably every district.

And I will say that housing crisis is something I deal with on a daily basis as a social worker.

And so raising property taxes is not going to help these people with low fixed incomes.

I was told that someone couldn't even go to the doctor for $20 because it didn't fit into their budget.

I was also told that the senior property tax freeze isn't going to be in place until next year.

So I don't like any of these plans because I feel like it's really gonna hurt those who are low fixed incomes for seniors and disabled, and I think we need to wait, reevaluate and figure out what's gonna be the best for the Chattanoogans who have been paying for taxes for probably decades of years and have stayed in this city because they love it, and they've raised they've raised their families here.

And as much as I want to make sure that the firefighters and emergency response people who would definitely help all of my clients of seniors and disabled, I want to make sure they get their due, but I want to make sure that my seniors and my disabled aren't being pushed out of the city.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Tamika White, and I serve as the political director of political director of SCIU Local 205, representing nearly 4,000 city workers and supporters.

I'm here tonight on behalf of Chattanooga Public Employees to urge you to fully support Mayor Kelly's proposed budget and reject any amendments that reflect cuts to critical programs and jobs.

These programs and for the workers are electricians, truck drivers, maintenance staff, firefighters, and police officers, to name a few, that keep the city of Chattanooga running.

One key issue is on call pay.

Being on call means giving up personal time and being ready, being ready to serve this city at moment's notice.

Right now, the on-call pay is $10.

And at that rate hasn't changed over a decade.

We support the improvements to on call pay, which is in the proposed budget, callback pay, and we urge you to keep this in the pro in the budget and fully funded.

Do not balance the budget on the backs of workers.

Their time matters, their service matters, and they deserve to be compensated for it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Trino Coke, and I'm Ron Elliott is my district.

And uh I'm here today when Kelly first came in, he gave us public works, the firefighters, policemen and a raise.

But we were so underpaid and still underpaid as workers.

I feel like if they're gonna get a raise, they should give the workers a raise because of the simple fact everything is going up.

People got mortgages to pay, taking up taxes, people got houses.

But my thing is if you take and giving a raise to them and not us, we first responders just like they are because we have to go out there for the storm.

We have to pick up the trees, then we have to sweep up the streets.

We got stuff that we have to do too.

But I feel like if you're gonna get a raise and raise everybody, give us a raise as workers.

We deserve it because the people coming in, they're able to obligate what they want to get paid.

We as workers, we already making that low pay.

But they're coming in making more money than us.

And we on and we getting underpaid, and we've been doing the job for years.

So, yes, all of us deserve a raise as a public work, police McBride.

All of us deserve more money because everything going up.

Inflation and all.

That's all I like to say.

Please think about us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ryan E.

Walt, District 2, former COO of City of Chattanooga.

It takes a lot for me to speak up publicly, but this moment was too important.

Let's all take a step back and leave our personal preferences at the door and think for a moment about what's best for the city as a whole.

I believe most Chattanoogans would support a modest increase to support police and fire pay and paving roads.

But the absolute minimum increase.

So it does not impact already inflated costs and push them out of house and home or business.

There may not be enough votes for the lower impact plan.

I don't know.

And if not, my hope would be for council to find middle ground between the dollar 69 and the $1.93 that a majority of council can support.

Larry David says a good compromise is when both parties are equally dissatisfied.

That feels uncomfortable, but it's true.

Can we all be a little more dissatisfied to find middle ground for our city as a whole?

Finally, I know you've been operating under an October 1 deadline for the tax rate.

But if you ask the city attorney, you will find that you have the power to move that back with only an ordinance change.

That could mean more time to educate our residents and find middle ground solution and get this right.

My seven-year-old son, William, prays every night, Lord, let no one be selfish.

It's a bold prayer.

I pray it for myself, and I pray it for all of us.

Thank you all for your service to our city.

My name is Chris Mullinix.

I'm the FOP president, and I'm a resident of District One.

The facts here are simple.

This budget amendment does not give our first responders the tools that we need to do our job.

The Henderson proposal claims to fund first responders the same as the Kelly plan.

This is not true.

This proposal does not include the additional truck at 21, the money needed for additional police vehicles and other needed equipment.

While we appreciate the inclusion of much needed raises, this proposal falls short of what Mayor Kelly has proposed and fails to keep us competitive with other agencies.

The alternative proposal does not include the funds desperately needed for our fleet of police vehicles.

In September of 2026, we'll have 45 new officers, and we will have no vehicles for them to drive.

Our FOP members are watching what the council does in this moment.

We are asking that you provide us the tools to do our job.

A vote for the Henderson proposal is a vote against public safety.

This is not the time for a band-aid.

This is the moment for you, the people we elected to fix this problem and take the next step to pass legislation to ensure that we are never in this position again.

Fixing the pay disparities half the equation.

More officers on the street without cars, does nothing to improve services, response times will not improve, and public safety will continue to be impacted.

Last Thursday, Hamilton County 911 toned out a priority one call.

Confirmed active shooter at UTC.

Every officer in this room got behind the wheel knowing exactly what they were driving into.

A situation where they could be shot and killed.

We went anyway.

There was no hesitation and no second guessing.

Fortunately, this was a false call, but imagine if it wasn't.

Imagine if we had the manpower needed to respond, but not the cars to get us there.

We are asking you, the council, properly equip our officers, fund the vehicles to get us there.

Because we're still responding.

The only question is whether it's behind the wheel or on foot.

Give me just and give me just a second.

So with that, we are right at 4 31.

So the young lady with the pink dress on.

Um, is there anyone else that's wanting to speak?

If so, please line up.

Other than that, we will end with Mayor Kelly here.

He'll be the last one.

Anybody else needing to speed, get in front of Mayor Kelly.

I'll jump up at the end.

Okay, I'm just saying, I'm telling y'all right now.

All right.

Okay, go here.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Kevin Hayes.

I'm with District Five.

You know, this is a complex problem.

Obviously, our firemen and our police officers need our support.

But also our citizens do too.

The American dream is to own a home and to be able to live it until your last days.

But the American dream doesn't need to be a nightmare.

Now I don't know how we're gonna fix it.

It could be Mayor Kelly's plan, it could be Chip's plan, it could be a combination of the two, or maybe even dipping into the dipping into the discretionary fund.

But something needs to be done.

We need to work together to figure this out because it's not fair for the birds to be placed on our senior citizens.

It's not fair for the firemen and police officers to not get paid a comparable wage, and it's not fair to taxpayers who want to have the American dream to be priced out of their homes because of an unfair, not unfair, but a super high tax rate.

So I hope that you guys can work it out.

Mayor, City Council, wish you the best.

God bless.

One more time.

Just for good measure.

If you plan to speak, please get in front of Mayor Kelly.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

So thank you for your patience.

You're welcome.

I'm Vivine Hershey, and I'm in District One, and I don't dispute anything that's been said as far as the pay for fire and people should make a living.

Um, I don't know if you all realize when you're self-employed, I wonder how many self-employed people are in this room.

When you pay social security, your employer pays 50% of that.

As a self-employed person, we have to pay all of it.

So many of us don't pay the full 12% when we're in business.

We try to find other ways to have income.

Uh and I'm one of those people.

I don't let the purple hair fool you, I'm 80 years old.

And we thought I didn't know what was going to happen to us.

Fortunately, this was a city we could afford to live in.

My son wanted us to move up to Lebanon, Tennessee.

He was going to build a home for us.

I don't want to live in Lebanon, Tennessee.

I volunteer a lot, I do a lot with the arts here.

It's a lifestyle that I can live.

And I'm just curious.

Nothing happened until after COVID, when all the Californians came with their money and lots of it, and could buy stuff here and pay rent that was high, which was a lot less than they were paying.

We'll be in the where how do we get to this position?

We wouldn't have had this increase had those people not come and just jacked up the rates.

And they're right.

Investors are here mostly, not little people.

So I cannot for one afford it.

So please at least vote for Chip's plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right, Mr.

Bale.

It's two minutes.

It's two minutes this time.

Three minutes later on.

I'll take that too.

Take it too.

No, you'll take one or the other.

So you either thought now or later.

You want to do now?

No, let's go later.

I think that extra.

Oh, you need the extra minute out here as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Bale.

All right.

And we'll get ready.

And we'll close out with Mayor Kelly.

Going, going, gone.

Yeah, going once, going twice.

Gone.

This is it.

Thank you, Chairwoman, Councilman Donnelly for allowing me to say a few words and close this out.

But also thank everybody here for the vigorous debate.

I mean, this has gotten obviously heated at times, but the it's predictable and it's appropriate.

Um, because this is how democracy works.

Uh, it's messy, uh, but this is how it works.

Uh look, the debate around property taxes has always been confusing.

Uh so let me just recap the facts for the record.

After reappraisal every four years, state law requires us to consider a new certified rate that holds revenue constant at the same levels from the last reappraisal.

The problem, of course, is that this number fails to account for inflation.

And we have just suffered the worst spike in inflation in the last 40 years.

We did not create this problem.

It's created by the federal government under the last administration, continues to be a problem in this administration, but we are left to deal with it, unfortunately.

In the in our region overall, inflation's been uh 22% since 2021 as an average, but it's been worse uh on the goods that we purchase in city government, like diesel, asphalt, vehicles, bulletproof vests.

Uh the cost of what we buy as a city government is higher than the 22.7 by any measure, 26 or 35, depending on what you include.

And it's not just us.

Local governments nationwide have seen a 25% spike in costs, according to the municipal cost index, which has been verified independently by the director of Center for Regional Economic Research at UTC, Dr.

Howard Wall.

So look, failing to adjust revenue to meet this inflation would literally make it impossible for us to fund government at the level Chattanoogans expect and deserve.

We would literally be trying to buy dollars worth of goods for 75 cents.

And that is how we arrived at the 1930 rate.

155 times 1.25 is 193 and change.

It makes just enough needed investments in our first responder pay positions and equipment.

As a young lady from Public Works pointed out, there's there are no raises in there for them.

There are there's no money in there for a whole host of things that many people want, deserve, and expect.

But it would be the lowest property tax rate in the history of Chattanooga's mayor council government.

Uh look, you know, there are quibbles with appraisals.

We have a process for that.

We have a county tax appraiser, Marty Haynes, uh, who is happy to listen to appeals on property uh on property appraisals.

All we can control is the rate.

Uh and this rate would cost the median household in Chattanooga just over a dollar a day.

Uh and you can't tell me that uh that is going to fill the streets with homeless people.

It's just not the case.

Um look, we live in one of the lowest tax areas in the United States, and this rate would keep us one of the lowest tax areas for state and local tax burden in the United States.

We are currently in Tennessee the third lowest in the United States for state and local tax burden.

Ahead of us, Wyoming and Alaska.

What do they have in common?

Massive revenues from oil and gas royalties.

You can take those out.

We are the lowest.

We are the lowest.

And within Tennessee, we are the next to the bottom of the major cities.

For the person advocating for metro government, by the way, uh per capita in Nashville, they pay $5,586 per resident in state in combined metro government taxes.

We're paying $1,800, and this proposal would take us to around 2,000.

So look, the only city lower than us is Memphis.

And you know, with apologies, sincere apologies to my friends in Memphis.

Is that what we want to be?

That's what we need to be asking ourselves.

Now look, this is not a champagne budget, it's a Budweiser budget.

It is just enough to get the job done.

So tonight's vote asks a key question.

What kind of city do we want to be?

When I ran for re-election earlier this year, I did so on the back of the one China plan.

And that's a blueprint for investment and making this the best city in America.

And I ran on our accomplishment accomplishments over the last four years.

Many of you were part of that.

Uh and I took my historic margin of victory, which was nearly 86% as a mandate to continue that work.

And that is all I'm asking.

No more and no less.

So please, uh, we've worked very, very hard on this plan.

It is a thoughtful and considered plan.

Uh, and we need you to pass it so that we can continue to make Chattanooga the best city in America.

Thank you.

All right, so thank you so much, Mayor Kelly.

I want to thank all of you for coming this afternoon and for sharing your perspectives.

I also want to acknowledge that taxes are a real concern.

Nobody enjoys paying them, including me.

And I always note anything that we pass, every all nine of us have to pay it.

So we have to pay whatever we're passing as well.

Uh I understand the frustration, but unlike many federal and state taxes, which include income, social security, Medicare, business, privilege, and fuel tax, property taxes are one area where you can see tangible benefits in your community.

It's been my pleasure to serve as budget chair.

Uh I want to acknowledge that this is my first time serving as chairwoman of the budget committee, a role our dear colleague Dr.

Carol Burr's held with distinction for many years.

Uh she left big shoes to fill, and I'm grateful to be able to serve in this capacity.

Um traditionally, the budget chair makes the motion to consider budget bills, and tonight uh when I make that motion, I'll be thinking of Dr.

Burr.

So, madam chair, be on the lookout for my light.

Uh I came in today, you know, kind of bittersweet because she's always led Dr.

Burrs had always led our um budget committee, and so uh kind of thought about her tonight as all these things are going on.

Uh I truly appreciate my colleagues for their hard work and dedication throughout this process.

Uh this process is part of our fiduciary duty.

So thank you for your diligence, patience, and camaraderie as we work through this process.

Uh as a reminder, we will be voting on both amendments this evening, whichever version passes, will be on the second read on September the 9th, because thanks to our madam chair, we will not be here next Tuesday as we rest up for Labor Day as well.

So, with that, for those who wish to leave, we will take a brief recess to allow for that.

Otherwise, uh I will turn this meeting over to our chairwoman.

Again, thank you so much for coming, and that ends our public hearing.

Very good.

Thank you.

Okay.

None of this was predicated on the other lines.

That's what I was doing.

Yeah, I'm still doing this thing.

I'm sure you've been getting a lot of it.

So hack before.

Were you not here last week?

Oh, I was here.

I had a better point last week, but I knew it was gonna be happening.

I was wondering like it's probably gonna be just hack.

And no behold, I'm like, I feel like every offer the officers.

I'm hitting me.

I know, that's why I think that's fine.

Okay, we are gonna move into the uh discussion of our agenda.

But first, can I please get a motion on our minutes?

Thank you, Council.

We have a motion on the minutes with a proper second.

Without opposition, those minutes will stand.

All right, so today's agenda, we do have two items on final reading that are planning.

Uh my intent is to take those as a package, unless uh there is an issue with that.

Hold on just a minute.

I've just got yes, okay, there we go.

Um, yes.

All right.

Does anybody have any issues with taking those as a package?

Okay.

Um next, moving into first reading.

Does anyone let's see, Madam Uh Budget Chair Cotley.

Um, I do want to put uh ask the attorney for some clarity on this because last week we got it, it was two separate items, but today is listed as uh the mayor's proposal is listed as item A, and then Councilman Henderson and Davis' proposal are listed as an alternate version.

So uh Mr.

Attorney, could you please explain how we vote on it?

And I let me go back.

I know Councilman Henderson mentioned that you were going to ask for it to be replaced.

Is that correct?

Or remove it and replacing.

Okay, so move you're gonna move to the man to replace the mayor's version with the one the one point nine.

I'm just gonna use numbers.

One point nine three with the one point six matches.

That's correct.

Right.

Okay.

So with that, I just want to make sure that there's clarity from our city attorney about how that uh how that works and what does each yes and no in each one of those mean.

Yes, ma'am.

These are items that are on your agenda as item A here to be considered, and you have an original and an alternate proposal here that is submitted at that point in time.

There are amendments that are allowed to uh proposals here and to motions under rule twelve of Robert's rules of order, which I reviewed in uh connection with this meeting because I thought this might come up.

That is the mayor's proposal.

There could be a motion to amend for the second proposal here that is on the agenda at that point in time, and they both can be considered uh by this body.

There has to be a motion and a second for a motion to amend to occur.

If a motion to amend is occurred that is allowed, then you discuss that item on the table first, and then you get a vote on it, and that vote if it's sufficient, you go forward.

If not, then you're done.

Okay, so just so I'm clear, so back to understanding yes and nays.

Yes, ma'am.

So initially, so I do plan to make the initial motion to move to get on the floor if I get a second, then councilman Henderson plan and we're deliberating in public, so nobody says anything.

That is a very good thing.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so then councilman Henderson will then make a motion to amend, and if he gets a second, yes, then we will deliberate that and vote on that amendment.

Correct.

If it's up or down, yes, then we'll vote on it.

Go back to your original.

Yeah, if it's okay, so if it gets voted down, like nobody if it doesn't get the amount of votes that need for councilman Henderson on the amendment is off the table.

Correct.

And then you would go back to the original motion.

Okay, then we go back to the original motion and we will vote on that one.

Yes, ma'am.

And that's the way that amendment reads, I believe, under Robert's rules of order, and that's why I tried to look at it.

All right, so council, if y'all got any questions or anything, ask Phil, and uh we'll try our best to madam chair, please if we can keep that as straight as possible.

I added notes.

Right, because I studied it as well.

And so I even have color coded, okay.

It's up to if we've ever done calisthenics, it could be today.

Right, it's a lie.

But um, I appreciate it slow.

Okay, thank you so much.

And I appreciate your uh diligence in this and Bethfield, if I like them.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're very welcome.

Thank you for all your hard work on this.

Uh councilman Henderson.

So, madam chair, uh, let's clear up the procedure.

Uh, because my question is gonna go a little differently than that.

So if any councilperson has questions on procedure, one of all the um Phil here.

Well, hit your light.

Let me come around to you that way.

We can hear you.

Okay, everybody else read your line.

Before we move on from this, so I understand.

We have the main motion, which is the one proposal.

Correct.

There is intention from councilman Henderson to amend it.

Yes.

And the amendment to clarify is to roll it above the vote.

Yes.

Other the replacement, yes.

Okay, and so hypothetically, and he has to have a second to do that.

Let's just have a second.

Yes.

And so hypothetically, it is just an amendment to move it up.

Correct.

Then we will actually have to vote on the actual item.

No, no, no, no.

Okay, that's why I'm clarifying.

It's not a it's not a motion to move it up, it would be a motion to amend the dollar 93 and replace it with a dollar sixty-seven.

6769.

69, I'm sorry.

Okay, okay.

I got a lot of numbers bumping around.

Okay, so it's uh just to clarify.

So you understand.

So when we vote, we're not voting to just move it up, we're voting to replace it.

To replace it.

That's right.

That's it.

I I'm I'm good.

I'm I'm caught up now.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Do we have any other procedural questions?

Okay.

Looks like we're good to go back to you, Councilman.

Thank you, ma'am.

Uh, since we still are on the budget on item eight, Chief Chambers, could you come up?

I've got a question, and and just to clarify, I did uh let you know that I was going to ask you this question before before I ask it, because I don't ever want to catch anybody off guard.

Um are we going to be behind on salaries as soon as we pass this budget?

So to end to answer that question, I just want to go back to explain how we got to where we where we actually are with the proposal and the funding needed for fire and police raises.

Um there was some speakers earlier that that spoke about compromise.

Well, myself and and the fire chief.

That's exactly what we did.

The goal was never to be the highest paid in the region or the state or anything like that.

The goal was to be competitive.

That's all our officers and firefighters are asking for, is to be competitive.

Now, granted, two months ago, whenever we did the math and we did this, the county had yet to increase their pay.

So they did that just a couple weeks ago.

We understand that.

We also, if you've been around for any length of time, you know that's the nature of working in a competitive market.

That is just going to happen every single time.

Even with the raises we're doing now, we're still competitive.

We are still competitive.

We're not paying more than the county, but we are competitive for what we do as long as this is not the end.

This has to be the end for budget and pay raise now.

But if we don't do something going forward to ensure that we're not in this exact same spot three to four years from now, then no, it will not be enough.

So if we do that, sir, then yes.

So I'm so when you in saying that, I mean, um I can only assume that we're going to be addressing at least police pay.

I don't know about fire, but at least police pay next year because county just raised theirs to I think 62,000, right?

Yes, sir.

And then ours or ours is going to be at about 54.

So that's so what what we're comparing it to the county they they don't have to train their their officers.

They don't have an academy, so they're starting at 62 is comparable to our police officers starting, which is after you're out of the academy, which is over 58.

It's 58 and some change, it's not 58,000.

That is correct.

That's that's the true comparison.

So chances are then I I guess what what I hear you say, I'm trying to figure out if we're gonna be needing to address police pay again next year.

Sir, we if if we don't put something, a mechanism of some sort in place for our first responders, we will always be in this situation, just like we have been in the 30 years that I've been part of this.

Yeah, yes, sir.

Okay.

All right, thank you, sir.

Yes.

So I I guess council, um, you know, hearing that um my concern is what are we gonna have to do again next year?

What is that gonna look like?

Uh, if we take this whole dollar 93 at one time, to me, it just leaves no room to do any kind of adjustments that we may need to do next year.

Um and look, here's what I think we're gonna have to do as a council.

We're gonna have to start looking at economic forecast so that we can get predictions on inflation so that we can get predictions on future growth, so that we can get predictions on salary increases, so that we can so that we can come up with a strategic plan.

It it has occurred to me that we uh seem to budget year by year rather than projecting and seeing where do we need the land four years from now, and and we're gonna have to start looking at a strategic plan of how do we get from here to where we're gonna have to be next year and the year after that.

I I guess and what I'm doing is is making a plea to this council to look at the lower rate so that we can come back and figure out what is the strategic plan that we need to develop so that we can be transparent with the public.

And I'm gonna be honest, the reason that this alternate version, and I I know it is sort of been the Henderson plan, it's an alternate version that we came up with uh in one of our budget sessions.

But the reason the alternate version does not include the the latter and the personnel for station 21, is because that discussion and that need was not even brought to this council until after we had formulated the plan and we had put it on the agenda so that it could be noticed in advance, so that we could send out uh uh notice for intent to raise uh the rate, or else that could have been included, and I think it does need to be addressed, those types of things.

It was not until the very last budget session that we had that we even heard that we needed police cars.

The very last budget session, we heard we needed police cars.

Wasn't that the first one that we had back in June?

We we spent weeks of budget sessions in June.

We spent weeks and budget sessions in July.

Wasn't until the very last session that we heard we needed police cars.

That's the thing that I have the most difficulty with with this budget.

We have been told from the beginning, and I have told my constituents from the beginning, we had to address fire and police pay raises.

I wanted to be transparent with them.

I wanted to be open and honest with them, and that's where public trust erodes is when we say one thing and we do another.

I can go back and find quotes that uh of where we said we needed to address the fire and police pay.

We we've passed a good budget, it's on a solid foundation, and now we found out well, maybe it really wasn't a good budget.

Maybe it didn't put us on a solid foundation.

I want to be transparent with my district, and when I tell them that we need to address fire and police pay, then I feel like that's what we need to address.

And that's the reason this proposal only included fire and police pay.

Please understand.

And it was at the last budget meeting that we had, I guess, in July, maybe August, I don't know, that we found out that we needed some police cars, that we needed a ladder truck that we need to address personnel at ladder at station 21.

That's the type of thing that I've had such difficulty with, and I would just implore this council to consider the alternate version number one, so that our seniors could take advantage of Councilman Elliott's legislation that raised the rate or raised the threshold to $60,000.

Let our seniors take advantage of that at a lower tax rate so that it does not affect them as significantly as the dollar 93.

I had a lady come up to me last week after she spoke, and you cut me off whenever you want me to done.

But she told me she said I don't budget for the year, I budget every month because some months my bills are higher or one line item is higher than another, and I have to kind of take from one line item to pay the other line item.

When she's considering an additional thirty-two dollars a month, where's she going to take that from?

I've been asked the question, what impact do these cuts have on our departments?

I'm gonna ask the question: what impact does this tax increase have on our taxpayers?

To my knowledge, I don't think we've spent not one session discussion discussing how this at least $1.93 tax increase is going to affect our taxpayers.

What are they gonna have to do?

What impact is it gonna have on their budget?

I think we have to take them into consideration when we look at passing this $1.93 and ask them how is this going to impact your budget?

What are you gonna have to do with it?

I got it.

It's ironic.

Last night came home, got a letter in the mail from the insurance company.

My homeowners is going up $30 a month, and I'm assuming all of everybody else's insurance probably is going up $30 a month.

So for those seniors, that's now sixty-two dollars a month that they're gonna have to figure out where's that money gonna come from.

I would just implore this council to seriously consider the alternate version, allow our seniors to get on this senior tax freeze and take advantage of the lower tax rate.

Madam Chair, thank you for the time.

Councilman Harvey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh, it is my intent to make an amendment to the alternate version when it comes up to include um not only the ladder truck but the company to staff station 21 in my district.

Um I said this at a neighborhood meeting last week.

It has been frustrating to me as the district four representative to have only found out about this pressing need, which is a pressing need and must be included in both of these proposals that this this is this is needed at station 21 in my district.

That's my folks care about public safety number one, and we've got to make sure that uh that is taken care of uh not only from a safety perspective, but from an ISO rating, which is extremely important again, and it helps with our insurance rates as well.

Um, so it is my intent to uh make an amendment to the alternate version uh to make the millage rate 1.73 to appropriate that revenue to station 21 ladder truck and the company to staff it.

Thank you.

Councilman Harvey, will you elaborate on the revenue that will be created at 1.73 and what the cost is for that ladder company and truck?

So we have it in our notes.

The additional revenue created from the 1.73 millage rate will be $4,308,000.

And the cost is right at $4,056,000.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anything else?

That's all.

Okay.

Councilwoman Dotley.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I do want to uh just speak to one of the things that Councilman Henderson mentioned that we are working on, and I wanted to make that public knowledge as well.

We are working on legislation and policies I've been uh I've met with uh mayor's administration that take a multi-year approach because that's something that we all uh have heard from my constituents.

It was something that I know uh councilman Henderson brought up uh a while back in last in last term.

Uh so that is something we will be taking a look at and different strategies and things of that nature.

So I did want to bring that up as regardless of what passes, this is being worked on, and it's that will be brought prior to any, you know, prior to FY27's budget.

So we will have some policies and some legislation here before you uh once all of this is done um to discuss this.

I wanted to make sure that that was out there uh to council that you know we're not just walking away from this and saying, oh well, we'll see what happened next year.

We don't want to continue to be in this situation, and so we want to make sure that we're doing it.

So that is there, and then um that is yeah, that is it.

That's all I have.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Okay, councilman Elliott.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I I want to echo, and I'm not gonna spend too much time on this, but I like many other folks have also heard the need to uh figure how do we make this more sustainable.

You know, I for one, I love y'all so much, but I don't want to touch another budget for at least me a few weeks after this.

But I also don't want to have city employees um caught in limbo, whether they're having to figure out if they have to leave, if um they have to work multiple jobs, provide for their families.

I don't want to have to put our citizens in tough conversations as to calculating is this something I'm gonna have to consider to make ends meet and to provide for my family.

So um if we can give ourselves just a couple weeks after all of this is over, uh, there's at least a couple.

I thought you were about to try to delay this budget.

Can we put it?

Just take a break.

If we can give ourselves a couple weeks, but we do need to resume these conversations again as to how do we put measures in place to make sure we don't fall back in the same place.

We owe it to ourselves and our sanity, our families, and most importantly to our constituents.

Um, but I also want to acknowledge this.

Um, you know, I understand this has been a difficult conversation for all of us.

It has put strain on the dynamics of us as colleagues, our counterparts and administration.

Um, but um, and we all have very difficult decisions we have to make.

Uh we all have to really see what's best for our district.

Um, and I when I look at this, you know, me personally, I've been torn.

I've been honest with that.

Honest about this, I've been torn uh about you know how do I protect my seniors, right?

That's why I was so adamant about pushing that senior tax freeze.

Um how do I be mindful about the predicament we find ourselves in with this increased assessment rate?

My district had the largest increase, 63%.

I cannot ignore that.

It's not any of our responsibilities, a whole nother branch of government.

But it's now at our feet.

How do I deal with the constant calls for my people of more resources?

My district has been historically underfunded for quite some time.

Uh and we have ranked at the bottom of that.

And but when I look across the aisle and I see other colleagues supporting like this lower rate and whatnot, I don't blame you all.

Um, you know, your situation may look different than mine.

What your district needs may not be the needs of district nine.

I can admit many of your districts, if not all, have received many more resources than we have over the years, and I don't knock you off for that.

If you've been in that seat for years, you've done right by your people, your predecessors, hats off to them because they have done right by their uh districts, but now I'm here and I haven't to consider all of this.

I say I'm gonna wrap this up by saying, you know, all this although this has been difficult, I am uh appreciative that we've been able to work through this.

I'm proud that we have a proactive council in this manner.

I think it's been quite some time that we have seen a council really exercise a lot of its legislative authority.

Uh, and it hadn't been easy, and you know, we're we'll get better at this.

Um, honestly, but you know, I'm proud of us.

Uh, I hope we can walk away from this as water off our backs, I continue to be uh collegial.

Um I said that right, cordiality, collegiality, yes, for cordiality, thank you.

Uh I think I wrote that on our little row uh thing, y'all y'all judged me for it.

Cordiality, that's the word I made up for it.

So y'all news, don't judge me for making up for it, don't edit that out.

But um, in all seriousness, thank you all.

Uh, I want to thank the folks of district nine for your patience.

Um, and um, I think I'm leave it there, madam chair.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Clark.

Uh, thank you, uh, Chairwoman Hill.

I've got a question for Chief Chambers.

If you can approach the podium, please.

And uh, Councilman Henderson, perhaps you can help with some clarity on this.

I may have to bounce back and ask you the question after asking him the question.

Okay, um, Chief Chambers, when we this council, including Councilman Henderson voted to approve the budget on June 30th, is that correct?

Yes, okay.

Sounds right.

In in those hearings when we were discussing, we had the full line item budgets, and we were aware of what each departmental needs were, including police and fire.

And during that time, did you not mention the need for police cars?

So, whenever I did the the proposal for this during the budget education sessions, I believe the date was the July 29th.

Um, I absolutely went into great detail about the fact that our vehicle line item budget in 2021 was cut by 50 percent.

And we voted and approved by council as well as you know, submitted by the mayor's office.

And since that time, we have not received that money.

I also went into some detail about the fact that we have a very large academy coming up at the time we were looking at 45.

We could have as many as 49 in this coming academy, and that if I did not get additional funds added to that line item, I was going to be overspent.

Because I explained further that I was already overspent by over a million dollars in FY25 in that line out because it has not been funded at the level that it that we've needed it to be funded since 2021.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Um Councilman Henderson, do you want to address that?

Or I just have a quick I have another question for the fire chief.

No, I mean go ahead and I'll I mean thank you, uh Chief Chambers.

Is the uh available?

Thank you.

Uh, which I know you'll be sworn in on the third on Thursday.

So congratulations on that.

Chief Knowles.

Yes.

When the budget passed on June 30th, uh your department amongst all of our departments did a presentation at that time you were not the fire chief, but you have served in leadership in the fire company.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

And those needs regarding ladder 21 were made known to this mayoral staff, and it was presented in the hearings before each of council member voted to pass the budget before we are at this amendment.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

I was actually in attendance for that meeting.

Uh retired chief Phil Hyman did that presentation, and in that presentation, he had a slide for all the priorities that we had that were in the budget that did not make it in the budget for this year, and ladder 21 and the crew for 21s among other uh priorities were in that presentation.

So, yes.

So these are not our first times hearing about the needs of this particular ladder company.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

My madam chair, I would like to uh take some more time similar to our uh councilman Henderson in mentioning that I guess my question would be because I'm pretty open-minded, I probably would have voted for this uh dollar sixty-nine, dollar seventy-three.

It's it's just like being in the courtroom.

When you put forth a proposal, you have the burden of proof is on you.

And you have to argue that proposal in the way that sways council people or members to be able to support that proposal in court.

And we are presented with facts and evidence.

And my only question and my only concern is that while all of us voted, including the sponsors of the amendment, voted to approve the budget at $2.25 per 100, by the way.

Though when we approved the budget the first time, we approved the budget pre-appraisal amounts at $2 at a quarter, and they voted for it.

And they voted for it.

And not only do they vote for it, they voted for the budget without proposing any cuts.

And so my question and concern would be as I'm open-minded to consider Councilman Harvey's amendment to $1.73.

And I appreciate that because I have family who live in your district and I want them to be safe.

But my question is that when we had the opportunity to propose these cuts to pay for fire and police, we did not do it on the first amendment.

Well, we could have, because those cuts that you are proposing, Councilman Harvey and Councilman Henderson, I think would have been sufficient enough for your $4 million and for your cuts.

So if you take the cuts that they're proposing, had it been applied to the budget we just passed and voted on, I think there could have been some opportunities for us not to be in this predicament, but those cuts were not proposed.

And so, you know, I guess my question is is that why are we now considering proposals to cuts and why did we not do that when you you never when we unanimously passed the budget?

Now maybe I need some education because we're new, and it's okay.

But we are not economists.

But we do look at trends and data from the mayorial staff who some are economists.

Some of us can look at national data, and then sometimes it's just as simple as looking at what other cities do.

And it doesn't take a rocket science to know that everybody is being or an economist to know that cities have to adjust to inflation or we have to cut services.

Now, I don't mind cutting.

My colleagues to the right of me know that I'm a fiscal conservative.

I would love to cut several things, but I realize that that is core and essential to certain districts.

When we first started this conversation, Councilman Henderson, I was not aware at how low we were paying fire and police.

And at that time, Councilman Henderson proposed a uh uh proposal to do incremental pay, and I was just like that is just crazy, crazy work while we would do that.

So I was following your lead because I do think what you did was honorable, and I support that, and making sure fire and police get paid what they are due, but we left out of work competitive because I wanted us to stay at $2 and a quarter because we could have done more because at the end of the day, when you go to the doctor, you may go to the doctor for one thing, and the doctor may discover other things.

It doesn't mean that you ignore it.

It means that you have an opportunity to do something about something that has been for the last councils, the last mayor that we're having to deal with in this decision in inflation, which none of us can control.

And so, you know, as I'm sitting here open-minded, knowing how I prefer to vote, I would like to hear more about how we arrived here, and I'm open-minded to learning more about the different rates, but I don't think we can cherry-pick rates as it relates to our districts.

Remember, this is we are one, a council that represents the whole entire city, and in some cases, we do have to ask our most capable citizens to help others.

What a noble cause.

What a noble cause to ask people who are wealthier.

I pay 10% tithes to my church.

I wish I actually paid more than that, because I'm a cheerful giver.

Those of you who are wealthier who can afford it, help fire and police, help those who are indigent in my districts who are seniors.

Yes, we are thinking about seniors as we consider this $1.93.

We all are, nobody's not thinking about the most vulnerable.

But we also have to remember how we got here.

A lot of you have let the county off the hook here.

We set the rate, not the value of the homes.

Yes, there is a tax rate increase, but we are dropping our rate lower so that we can do more with less.

And that is hard because when you pop open the hood in the city of Chattanooga, as you have heard at the podium from our first responders who respond to your service requests, our system is aging.

And somebody's gonna pay for it.

Is it gonna be this council or the next council?

Because if we don't, there will be an emergency.

It's just like your health.

You do preventative care, you can kick it down to can you, we could drop the rate down to $1.25 if you want to.

But if you don't do the preventative care, it will get worse.

And that's what's happening in how we're trying to deliver services to the city, because if it gets worse, we will have to pay more, and then there'll be another tax rate increase.

But I do I would ask you all to take some of this argument to the county.

You know, your home values were right.

We can't set the value of your homes.

That tax increase came as a result of a very historic rate increase from the county appraisals.

In certain states like California and Texas, you can only do a 10% increase at one time.

We did a 50%, 56% increase on District 5.

That's not anybody's spot up here, but we have to take that argument to the county and ask them to revise.

And I think they are open to that, but the county commission needs to revise how we assess property value.

So Madam Chair, I will conclude in saying that you know when we voted on this budget, we didn't hear about cuts, and as we considered our vote tonight, you know, I would like to just kind of understand a little bit more about how we got to the amendment process, and why it's okay to discover that we can do more if we can do more.

And I think what happens is if we adopt a dollar 93, either rate will produce more funds for us in our coffers, but we still have more work to do in Chattanooga.

We have public works that's underpaid.

We have an agent infrastructure.

So if we stop here and say, congratulations, fire and police, and I think we will, we will have to come back to this dais probably in a couple more months to figure out the other issues that the city has to uh tackle.

So there's nothing wrong with saying, hey, when we pass the budget, we were only going to do fire and police.

There's nothing wrong with us saying, you know what, we got some extra money to fix something else.

I know when I go to the doctor and I have a lot of issues, I try to get everything taken care of.

Because if I kick the can down the road on one issue, it could cause collateral damage and cause illness elsewhere.

That's what we're doing when we don't use excess revenue from our property tax increase to pay for other things we need.

And so I just ask you all to be open-minded and knowing that as council, it's just not to piecemeal work.

If we can do something, let's do it.

And that's how I'll be voting.

Uh, with the rate, I think that does the most, and and it just doesn't stop at fire police.

I'm supporting the $1.93, even though I wanted the $2.25, because it is a compromise, but it allows us to do more.

And I think when we can do more, uh, we are doing our fiduciary duty as a council and not just stopping at fire and police because there is more to do.

Thank you, uh, Chairwoman Hill.

Thank you.

Um, Councilman Henderson, how to response to your question.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh Rick, will you turn his mic on, please so I can keep the cue.

Thank you.

Come on.

Okay.

Uh look, let me just respond to a couple things.

Number one, um, it and I don't I wasn't sure if he was going back to the regional budget that we passed on June the 3rd.

Uh at that time, to my knowledge, I had not heard it, and if I had heard about the needs for the police cars and and the fire trucks and all that, as Chief uh Knowles just said, they had a list of other priorities.

I mean, just about every every department comes with a list of priorities, things that they need, things, okay.

I expect the mayor to prioritize those things and then bring them to council.

My point was, and even even in the uh presentation that we had at the very last council meeting when it was a dollar ninety-nine before they found the accounting error.

Uh the fire truck and the station 21 was not in that proposal.

It was not in there.

So point being it was not presented as an absolute necessity until after I had set the alternate version.

Now let me address another thing.

The the 225, when we passed the budget on June the 3rd, we did not set the rate at 225.

It was a revenue neutral budget.

We took last year's budget and added growth to it.

We did we never set the rate.

That was a that was just set at a budgetary amount.

So the rate was never set at 225.

Now, let me address you said how we got here and why now why now am I proposing cuts?

I'm gonna go back to when we passed the budget, and and I wasn't gonna bring this up, but when we passed the budget on June the 3rd, if you'll remember, uh I offered an amendment that set aside five million dollars from the general fund.

Which was a cut to the budget.

That was a cut.

And and this was what was said by our chief of staff.

Said the goal is for the city to find an additional five million dollars in savings, though he said it would be difficult.

I can remember my grandfather telling me all the time when he was in the CBs building the runway for the uh plane for the atomic bomb to to take off from.

He said, I've heard him say this a million times, the difficult we do immediately.

The impossible takes a little bit longer.

I expected the administration to bring us cuts to find the money for the fire and police.

From that statement, even he made that statement in uh one of our budget hearings.

And that's what I have been telling my people is that we were gonna find cuts in the budget, but that most likely we were still gonna have to increase our property tax rate in order to fund the fire and police pay.

That's what that's what I thought was going to happen, and when it didn't happen, then that's why I offered the alternate version.

Council members.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I'm gonna try not to repeat too many of the things that have been said, but I I wanted to thank all of the people that have reached out via email and mail and voicemail, and um, and it's been especially um important to hear from the all people all over the city, especially my district, people that I had an opportunity to talk to on the phone or at a community meeting, but at my most recent meeting, which was last Thursday, it reminded me of the importance of getting together with people from across my district and talking about issues and not about not my issues, but about topics that people in district six wanted to talk about uh that have an impact on their daily lives.

And it was uh a great and civil conversation with me and other city departments listening and talking about solutions together, and we are not perfect.

I I I've learned through this process and through life that we're not perfect, and we do still have a lot of work to do relative to infrastructure and safety and community, and and my goal is to continue to work with the people in my district resolve that, but um, and to help connect them to services.

Um I do that, and I this came to mind just hearing some of the people that that talked tonight, which I do appreciate everybody that spoke tonight, but I do that because it's the right thing to do, and it's not because I've been pressured or intimidated.

Um I I took an oath to do so.

For for me, it it's not a personal thing, it's not it's not personal to me, it's about you know taking care of what I said I'd set out to do.

And this has been an interesting process and one that I do not take lightly.

Um I think it's it's our obligation to look at how we ensure that our city remains safe and keep services operating at an optimum level, and it's been tough to come up with that.

I will say, as I've shared with administration that I'm not proud of the way that the budget was presented to us and the lack of emphasis on the supplemental expenses above and beyond fire and police, and we've got to do better.

We've had that conversation that we've got to do better about making sure that we have full information so that when we're being asked to make those critical decisions that we can do them with the faith that we know what's in front of us, but with that being said, we can't unring the bell.

That bell's been rung, and um we have to move on.

I don't think this is a proposal to pay it to pat anyone's pocket, and I don't really think that there's anything hidden.

Uh I think it's about moving forward and realizing that what is needed to is to maintain services for everyone.

And I I like my constituents, I live on a fixed budget, so and on a fixed income, and so I get it.

Um I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of minimizing how we address the rising costs, and that our city's experiencing, and where does that leave us in nine months as several other people have amended have mentioned, and I think we can debate this whether we pay now or whether we pay or later, but at the at the end of the day, after the four and five months that I've been working in this position full time, um, I trust the people that I've worked alongside the heads of the departments, not I'm it's not that I don't trust the mayor's office and the administration, but I'm I'm talking about the people that are boots on the ground that are making these decisions that are telling us this is what they need in order to continue to do their job.

I think they truly care, like I think we do, uh, about our city and about meeting the needs of all of our people.

So I want to thank all of you, my co-council members.

I know this has not been an easy decision.

I know that each of us has put our heart and soul and probably some prayer into making um making the best decision for our districts in our city, and uh I for one will continue to work with the various departments to ensure that I understand um and am shown the impact of how these dollars are gonna be spent.

I mean, uh again, I've had that conversation with the administration on a regular basis and not just once a year around budget time.

So I thank uh everyone again who's been involved in this process um and look forward to getting this first vote behind us.

So thank you, madam chair, for the time.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Councilman Davis.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

I'll also try not to be redundant.

Um, I was keeping a little tally earlier uh when folks were talking to us about their feelings, and um it seems that most people don't like either plan.

So I think maybe we should uh should consult the judicial branch of city government, see what they have to offer.

Um, no, but but seriously.

Um this alternative plan, which I've co-sponsored um with Councilman Henderson.

Um, for me, it's been an effort to do what's possible.

Uming we have to have five votes to pass anything, uh knowing I, for one, cannot support the dollar ninety-three rate that's proposed by the mayor.

Um, and so we came to the room with you all and and had a conversation several weeks ago, and that was a difficult conversation.

Um, but many of us stayed in that room and we heard the concerns um about the cuts that our plan would make to community development and early learning.

Um, and we adjusted our plan.

Uh, remember it started at a dollar sixty-seven and now we're at a dollar sixty-nine.

So we heard those concerns, and and we compromised.

That's what I consider compromise.

I'm I'm not sure who the mayor's who the mayor and his staff have compromised with because there's a plan that was presented to us.

Um, and I don't say that to be facetious, uh it's just the way I see it.

Um and so again, we we heard those concerns and and we adjusted.

Um, I'm prepared to adjust again here tonight to make sure that station one is is taken care of now that we know that need.

Um and it is frustrating that we haven't known those things from from the get-go.

Um I believe that's all I have.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Looks like um everyone has has said what they would like to, so um, I'll take a minute as chair.

Uh, but Kevin, I see you here.

Would you like to add anything?

Yes, okay.

Um councilman Davis.

You're pretty new.

I think that it's fine that you didn't know everything.

Councilman Henderson, we sat down in May, and I walked through in a one-on-one session with you a long list that's more than 45 million dollars of things that we had to take out of the budget to get it to balance.

It in your retelling of how this has played out, even in the direct poll that you just read.

I never committed that we would come back with cuts.

That was your expectation.

That's what you just said.

And you're and you went out and you sold that to people, and you're disappointed about that.

I came back to you with crystal clarity that we have examined and cross-examined this budget, and the mayor.

Whose job it is, it's my job to stand in the gap between the administration and the council and to try to translate and balance all of the competing priorities.

I knew exactly where you were because you made it crystal clear that you weren't gonna support anything over 10%.

I came back to you guys and I said, listen, we do not think, we do not see additional cuts that don't draw blood.

That being said, here are some ways to think about the cuts.

Here's why we don't like them, because they represent these various bodies of work that we think are important.

It's the mayor's prerogative to come back and to make a proposal, which is what he did.

199.

We're gonna settle on whatever we're gonna settle on.

And we got and we gotta move on.

This councilman Davis, this is a compromise from 225.

It's not that difficult.

155 is the CTR.

225 is what the current rate is.

193 is right in the middle.

I do not appreciate you impuning my character, Councilman Henderson, and saying that I told you a lie.

I did not tell you a lie.

That's all.

Okay, go ahead.

I don't necessarily like to get into a public debate.

Yeah, let's let's read.

Am I not on?

You're you're on, but let's let's try not to make it personal, folks.

I read a quote that was straight out of the Chatonoga.

I never, I've never chief said you lied.

What I said was you indicated that you were gonna find cuts.

And I guess what I did not anticipate is not only not finding cuts, but that you came back with additional request, an increased amount.

At least I'm gonna say this.

You left me with the impression that you were gonna try to find cuts.

Would that be a fair analysis?

That you left me with the impression that you were gonna try to find cuts.

Is that fair?

Yes, and I did.

Okay.

And that was the impression that I had that you were gonna try to find cuts.

I had no idea you trying to find cuts was gonna lead to an additional 21 million dollars above cuts.

That's all I'm saying.

Okay.

And do not feel like you lied to me.

Okay.

And I appreciate that.

And I had no way intended for you to take it that way.

But you did leave me with the impression that you was gonna try to find cuts.

And I'm gonna leave it there.

That's the last thing I got.

And I did, and I also committed to you on the phone when you tried to get me when we were talking about the amendment, you asked me to commit to additional cuts on top of the five, and I told you I cannot commit to something without understanding one, the path to additional cuts, and then two, once I identify what that path might be, knowing with reasonable certainty that it's something that the mayor, whose name is on the door, would support.

And I said so I can't make that commitment.

But I commit to roll my sleeves up and to come back with something, and that's what we did.

Okay.

It's a good budget, y'all.

We passed a good budget, and this is a good opportunity.

I understand nobody likes taxes, but guys, it's a dollar ninety-three or a dollar sixty-seven, like we're we're negotiating against ourselves.

Thank you, Kevin.

Councilman Elliott.

Uh I would like to move on.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

If we could move on, next topic.

Um well, I'd like to say a little bit, please.

Okay.

Um I think that where we have landed at this point in this conversation to me highlights one of the most important things that we're gonna need to do moving forward, which is to um rebuild some relationships between the administration and the council and the council with one another.

Um this budget, neither one of them is a panacea, and I don't know if anybody's ever noticed, but nothing is ever perfect in the butt in a government budget.

Um, the utopia that we are told will come does not come because life continually changes and needs change.

So this decision today is important, and it will absolutely impact the bottom lines of families across the city.

Whether you are a first responder, whether you are um a renter, a homeowner, a property owner.

If you live in Chattanooga and have something to do with with um putting a roof over your own head, you will feel this.

Um I really appreciate what councilman Elliott said about the fact that this is a proactive council, and we're doing difficult work that has been made more difficult than it ought to have been, honestly, in the way that this uh budget process has unfolded.

you are a first responder whether you are um a renter a homeowner a property owner if you live in Chattanooga and have something to do with with um putting a roof over your own head you will feel this um but I really appreciate what councilman elliot said about the fact that this is a proactive council and we're doing difficult work that has been made more difficult than it ought to have been honestly in the way that this uh budget process has um unfolded um and I appreciate what you said councilman that we will get better at this and that is the torch that I want to carry forward because um to budget chairwoman dotley's point and councilman Henderson's point we need to be very intentional about how we think about our city finances in incremental and strategic ways moving forward and we cannot do that if we are at loggerheads with one another the concept of one Chattanooga for which this city has rallied has not been demonstrated in the communication that has come out about this budget and I know that we are better when we work together and I know that we're better when we work to find compromise so however this goes today my hope is that we will kind of let our sore muscles go and then be unified to work together for what's next because that's what the people of Chattanooga need so I will close out our budget discussion and move on to resolutions.

We still got one more item on but well we do we have the capital budget ordinance does anyone want to talk about the capital can councilman Henderson Chief you might coming back up I look through yeah I'm sorry too many we got too many chiefs in here I looked in the uh backup documents for this um uh for the the capital budget ordinance and and um the best I could tell we were adding to this but I would like for you to confirm is so I back in uh March we got a quarterly council council active project listing uh for our uh capital projects were there was there any line items in that quarterly report that was removed that's reflected in this proposal there are no there are no line items moved all this proposal does is add additional funding okay to the enumerated line items and I thought that was the case but I just wanted you to confirm that yes sir thank you all right council are we good to move out of finance yes okay uh we do have several resolutions on our agenda for this evening if you have um any questions or would like to discuss community development council office parks and outdoors public works or police resolutions please say your light okay looks like we are good on that purchases council we have one purchase this evening no questions on purchases we will not meet next week we are taking a break for labor day and so we do not have a two week agenda to discuss so let's take a look please at future considerations if you have a question about future considerations please hit your light okay seeing none looks like we are good to finish up this portion of the agenda session and hand the chair over to oh okay here we go councilman elliott um yes before we move on to this I think you and I have talked about this last week um councilman Clark and I would like to add a resolution to the next agenda a resolution uh for council to consider supporting UNW's efforts and their um negotiations with both spikers okay do you have the uh the written yes ma'am okay send that over okay please send that uh to me and to the clerk yes ma'am thank you thank you okay all right is there anything else before we head into planning and zoning three two one I've got to adopt councilman dotley's um uh rigor all right councilwoman burst it's all yours the offense okay thank you chairwoman hill um we do have a planning and zoning committee meeting uh tonight because normally it would be on the second and because we're gonna be off on the second we're gonna try to breeze through this pretty quickly I think we have a pretty small list of items to discuss so but

Okay, thank you, Chairwoman Hill.

Um, we do have a planning and zoning committee meeting uh tonight because normally it would be on the second, and because we're gonna be off on the second, we're gonna try to breeze through this pretty quickly.

I think we have a pretty small list of items to discuss.

So, but uh to start off, can I get a motion to accept the minutes from the last meeting?

Okay, thank you.

With that, uh the minutes are accepted, and we'll move on to our items.

Council, you should have received uh some notes from Karen Rennick with Regional Planning Agency on the cases that are coming up with their um with their comments.

There are two items that have been highlighted that um we will ask Karen to make a presentation on.

Is there anything else that anybody else would like more information since she's gonna be talking to us today?

All right, uh so Karen.

Oh clearly this one.

This one I'm never gonna learn this system.

Okay, that's the only one you need to mark.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like a presentation for uh the first item.

Yes.

For my district, thank you.

Yes, we will that one we will definitely cover.

And then um, Chairwoman Hill, did you or no Rikita?

Uh Chairwoman Dotley, sorry.

That's okay.

My apologies for the one um yeah for uh item 2025 0122.

I will like a um just a brief presentation on that one.

The Southside Gardens thank you, thank you.

So, Karen, it looks like uh one two three and one two two on the first page, and then councilman Elliott.

Were you still active?

Okay, all right.

Anyone else?

Uh Councilman Harvey, you got your answer.

Councilwoman Dotley.

I think it's button.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

Yes.

I like a presentation on 2025 0120 and 2025 0121.

Okay, so it looks like everything except for uh O2, yeah.

All right, anybody else?

Okay, great.

Karen, if you will uh move ahead with the zero one, two, three.

Um, but feel free to ask um if if I'm going too fast.

Um the first case in one two three is on Pinewood Drive in East Brainerd.

Um, and there is a lot of um a mix of development in this area.

Their quest is to go from RN16, which is the former R1 zone in um our suburban areas, to the R and one three residential neighborhood zone.

And I'm just gonna this case did have opposition at Planning Commission, and I think to summarize that opposition is the new um Area 12 East Brainerd plan is really trying to say in the suburban areas, the R1 and single family detached areas of East Brainer that small lot homes, town homes, those are going to the edges, says would be along corridors, they'd be along centers.

This is just east of um gun barrel, so there'd be an expectation we'd have more of that development along gun barrel.

Um, but this property is um surrounded by R1 um single family development.

So I think that is one factor.

Um the other factor is the zone itself.

So um there is recent activity on Mintom.

The property to the southeast was zoned in 2022, and the proposal at that time was town homes, but that hasn't started construction that we're aware of.

Um, so the immediate properties on either side, growers single unit residential um detached.

There is a property that fronts on gun barrel and min Tom to the southwest that's attached development.

There's property um across to the southeast, and that says detached, but that's actually um we believe an attached development hasn't started development yet.

So zooming out, Mintom has a lot of attached housing on it.

So although the overall plan for the um Hamilton Place East Brainerd area and the residential is single family detached larger lot, mintom's a bit of an exception, and that you have quite a bit of single unit attached housing already there.

Most of that, if not all of it, was put in place before the new plan was developed.

So we're looking at a site that has detached on either side, but south of Mintom is quite a bit of attached housing, and then there's an institutional use to the east, which is St.

Nicholas School.

So again, that's showing kind of all that yellow in the plan is that single family detach, but it is not necessarily reflecting all the attached housing along Mintom.

The other issue that came up in the staff report was the zone itself.

The property right now is zoned RN16, which has a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet.

So most of the single family residential detached development.

We also have an RN15, but the applicant is requesting the RN13 zone.

That has a minimum lot width of 25 feet and a minimum lot size of 3,000 square feet.

The applicant, however, is proposing an average lot side of 5,000 square feet, but a smaller frontage.

So I guess staff just made the note that previously we have had discussion at council about using that RN13 zone is a semi default variance tool.

In this case, the average lot size of 5,000 square feet.

It seems like the RN15 might be a possibility, and the applicant could pursue a variance for the excuse me, minimum, yeah, the lot frontage or lot width.

So noise just noting that the applicant did propose conditions, but it does seem that the possible the RN15 zone is also an option, but not requested.

Staff did recommend deny um setting a precedent using the RN13 zone at this location.

Planning commission did um recommend does recommend approval with four conditions, maximum density of 16 lots.

That's what's shown on the site plan that does keep the density a little bit lower than what's allowed by right in that zone.

ADUs are not permitted.

Um applicant might want to speak to that when he is up, and then there's a landscape buffer on both the east and western property lines, and that is intending to help address compatibility, and that was those conditions were offered by the applicant and recommended by planning commission.

Any questions, Cody?

Uh Councilman Harvey.

I'm on first names today for some reason.

Sorry, guys, how inappropriate hand me Robert School thank you.

I apologize.

Okay.

Um since there's no other questions, let's go ahead and move on to 102, please.

Okay.

Um, this is in South Side Gardens.

Um, Howard School is um about two blocks to the right, and this is a rezoning from the TRN3 traditional residential neighborhood zone and RN3 residential neighborhood zone to CCX9.

So there's two things going on here.

One is the rezoning to from a traditional uh zone to a form-based code zone.

They're both zoning, they're just a little um slightly different.

Um, and then there's discussion on that CCX9 zone itself.

So the nearest form-based code zone is the Wheel and Foundry Ballfield site to the west.

That's the Chestnut Street form-based code zone.

And this is the zone the applicant is requesting.

So our form-based code allows someone to develop their own form-based code for property.

It's really for those larger sites like the bend and west side in the former Wheel and site.

That was developed, but once it's in the zoning code, anyone can take advantage of it.

In this case, the applicant felt that this was a bigger uh better fit for what they're developing.

So South Side Gardens um it's kind of a mix right now, particularly in this area of single-unit residential.

Um there's some um churches, vacant land, um, and a multi-unit residential on the corner.

So I'm just gonna flip through briefly.

Most of y'all are pretty familiar with what the development pattern is.

Um the proposed site plan.

This is spending a lot of time talking about comparing the zones.

Um, the CCX9, the applicant felt had a more appropriate um urban setbacks for what they were proposing.

Staff did have concerns about the CCX9, which allows nine stories.

This um chart also shows that all those additional uses that are um non-residential that can be in that zone, um, and that is not in line with the plan recommendations.

So staff was recommending denial based on that.

At Planning Commission, after discussion, the planning commission is recommending approval, but addressing both the plan, which was recommending residential and height at three stories by placing conditions on this.

So it comes with a planning commission recommendation to approve that CCX9 zone with the conditions to enforce the residential use and the maximum height of three stories.

And so those did address two items in the adopted plan and two items of staff concern also.

Councilwoman Dotley.

All right, thank you so much, Madam Chair.

So just all clear.

Pardon the nine stories in the South Side Garden areas.

Now I know Mare Walker Towers is there, but that's a different situation.

That's on the main road.

So this is inside a neighborhood.

They're requesting nine stories.

And then but yes, with three.

I believe the intention was to never develop nine stories.

So the way the form-based code is set up, if there's not a CCX one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight until you just get to nine, then you have to go with the nine because that's the way it's set up.

I don't think the applicant ever intended nine.

I believe the discussion at Planning Commission was that was what they were doing attended was a maximum height of three stories.

So this would cap it at that three stories or 40 feet, regardless of that nine designation.

And if we ever did have another case in the area, we would flag that this condition is enforcing that at three stories.

Okay, and then it says residential and short-term vacation rental uses only.

How many units were planned in these?

Say that one more time.

I'm sorry.

How many units?

Um see if I have a note on the number of units.

It is not as much because it is.

So they're proposing 11 units, and I believe that that is not including.

I could count, I don't think that's including the ADEs along the back.

Um, but I will confirm with you the number of units and then send you an email.

Okay, just uh and also just have the developer reach out.

Or just to have the developer reach out to the okay.

That's it.

Thank you, Clara.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We did talk about a couple other zoning options, but it seemed like the one planning commission felt that that zone with the conditions not that urban development need and the plan recommendations.

Okay, right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Karen.

I see no other questions about this one, so we can move on to the next one.

115.

Okay, this is a request for an offer.

This is the next one.

Oh, pardon.

120, my vault.

Yes, 120, sorry.

And um, we have two cases back to back that are um the same applicant and very similar.

So um this one is to convert this to a quadplex.

The next case is a tri um for three unit triplex.

Um, but they're um but so I'll kind of touch on the similarities.

The rest of it is pretty much similar.

Um, so these are one block north of East Main Street, and um the applicant would like to um transition it to the TRN2 traditional neighborhood zone.

It does abut that commercial um that commercial zoning along East Main Street.

The plan does recommend a transition for the site, and it is recommending a mixed residential um form, which is a wide range of housing options, and so um staff felt that this was in line with that wide range of housing options.

They intend to keep the existing structure and convert the units so it seemed to address compatibility, also the lot size and the requested zone and the development is a um one of our new urban residential tools felt was a good fix, excuse me, a good fit.

So um the request is compatible with the plan, adjacent land uses and development forms.

Um there was no opposition at planning commission, and this comes with a recommendation to approve.

Um, this is um the this case is at um 2306 east 14th Street, and the next case is just down the street um and with existing structure, and this is the one that's proposed for three units and very similar recommendation.

The plan does support mix of housing in the area, it's adjacent to that main street commercial um residential court commercial court or mixed use corridor.

Um, and so both staff and planning commission had a similar recommendation to approve that the zone was a good fit for the proposed use and met the uh plan recommendation.

Councilman Elliott.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh Karen, has this always been a single family structure?

So um this one I don't believe has been and I think the picture is in here for partly to show the number of boxes or excuse me, the electrical on the side.

I think it is a conversion, but I can confirm that with you that that is it's operated as a multifamily or was constructed as a multi-family in the past.

Okay, and I'm just looking to convert it back.

I believe so.

Okay, um, I haven't talked to this applicant yet, but can you have them give me a call?

I will.

Thank you.

Welcome.

You good?

Yes, ma'am.

All right, wonderful.

Uh see no other lights, then I think we will finish up with the final item for the ordinance uh amended amendment.

Okay, and this is um similar as we've done in the past.

We have um the grace period for the new zoning ordinance um ended in June.

So we have been very busy working with LDO with making sure that we've working through all the items in the zoning ordinance.

Um a couple things here.

The first one, form-based code has perimeter planning.

Um there was a gap.

It went from four to nine and then 20.

So we're trying to fill in the gap.

We look back, it's this section's been amended a couple times that we think it was a typo, but just to fill in the gap, we're going ahead and doing a ordinance amendment.

The second item are town homes.

So the new zoning ordinance recommends that town homes, a massive townhome.

So a town home, we're kind of thinking it's the one unit.

We've been calling them a mass or cluster of town homes.

Um when they're the you know, they're attached.

The new zoning ordinance outside the urban area has a recommendation of no more than four units massed at the same time.

And part of this came out of the East Brainerd planning process in order to really integrate townhomes into and um to ensure that we're able to work them into our communities.

Holding the massing was a recommendation coming out of that.

So we do have approved developments that using their zoning they had in place, we're able to do up to 12 units.

Um we had three or four um developers contact us and say, I'm a midstream, I'm developing, but I've had more than four.

So this amendment says basically if you were allowed to do more than four attached units in the past, you can continue that.

Planning commission, there's quite a bit of discussion at planning commission about this amendment, and we did tell Planning Commission that we would come back with them to think about that four unit, make sure that it's not just limiting and outside the overlay in the because there are places where more attached units are appropriate, maybe a court or a transit court or a center.

So this one you might see tweaking um based on some additional work by staff.

Um the next two slides are um related to crematory.

Crematory is not has been a use um in the zoning ordinance in the past.

For some reason, it did not make it in the new zoning ordinance.

So a couple things are happening here.

A crematory definition is going in.

Um it is putting parking for the crematory, it's putting it in zones as a special permit, and it's creating principal use standards.

And the principal use standards here are based on staff's work and questions we've had based on crematories previously.

So a crematory now must have an approved permit from the Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau for the use of that location prior to submitting an application for a special permit at the Board of Zoning Appeals because in the past there's been activity about getting a permit from Hamilton County Air Pollution, and I'm also maybe getting a permit from the board.

It's been confusing.

So we were giving that as the first hurdle.

And the second is um because we have had crematories proposed um across from schools and in more commercial areas.

The recommendation there is just um screening and buffering from the public view because that has been a concern during the public process in the past with crematories.

Um these are standalone crematories, um, not necessarily and then crematories that are part of a funeral home are different.

So there's no question about crematory, last two items.

One is the um agreement for off-site parking.

We have language in the zoning ordinance.

It was confusing.

So LDO, I believe I believe this goes back to our old um language, but this is request of LDO just to help them with enforcement and about recording those access easements.

And then lastly, buffer yards.

Um we had a applicant flag, or excuse me, uh a development partner flag that we had language in the zoning ordinance that was conflicting.

This language we're doing that by aligning both the um those sections to be the same.

So this language was in there.

Um it had a conflicting statement somewhere else.

We're just making sure those both align.

And this was also at the request of LDO after it got flagged.

And then lastly, um non-conforming uses.

Um we have already amended non-conforming uses to address signage appropriately.

While we were doing that, we somehow dropped the nonconforming non-residential section, which is very important.

And so this is the language in red is the new section.

It does not change the sign language, which is very important to us, and it doesn't change the non-conforming residential use, which is not subject to any discontinuance or abandonment, allowing us to keep as many residential uses active as possible.

It's just addressing non-residential uses, and this is the language that um was in there before it got removed.

Yes, and that is it, unless there's any questions.

Yes.

And I think when we consider modernization of our code, these small changes are a very appropriate and thoughtful way to do that.

So thank you for always bringing us back each month to take a look.

This definition is specifically for a facility where human remains are cremated.

Tell me more about pet yes, I was about to say, as soon as you said that, I yes, it probably does need to be amended to be pet crematory.

And we did have pet crematory and the other one.

Yes, thank you for that.

So we would want to amend this, and I've um acceptable city attorney about amending that to add pets because we have we do have those.

I believe this is a remnant of a typo.

It is a remnant of a typo.

Because we talked about it back in June.

So um actually in April.

So let's make sure that that gets changed to cannot.

I will, thank you for that.

Okay, thank you very much.

That's all, Madam Chair.

And Madam Chair, can I just mention that um Madam Chair's both?

Um that we have really worked very um hard with LDO.

I mean, it has been a really great partnership, and we have our weekly meeting, which was really where we kind of identify these and decide what to move forward.

So just um, you know, couldn't do it without them and a ton of thanks for their their work with us.

We appreciate that.

Great feedback, thank you.

Yeah, it is.

Thank you, Karen.

Thank you for all your work and your staff.

I see no other lights, so I'm assuming there's no other questions about any of these matters.

Is that correct?

So um just a quick reminder uh and then uh your note, Chairwoman.

Uh the next planning commission meeting is September 8th.

I forward to you all the schedule of what things are going to be discussed for your districts, and if there's anything that you um that you want to hear more about, please I encourage you to attend that meeting at one o'clock.

And um we're gonna need a 20 minute at least minimum uh attorney clients, so let's return at seven.

Okay.

Um so we will recess until seven.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We are back in session.

Madam Clerk, will you please read items A and B under final reading?

Item A.

And Norton is closing and abandoning multiple sanitary sewer easements and the 1500 block commercial street and then the 1100 block of Luptonville crossing, including number one, a sewer easement beginning at MH number S11AN001, Vince Northeastwardly 3,77 feet to MH number S118 L.

Number two is Sewer Eastman beginning at MH number S118E053, then Southwest 171 feet to MH number S118E306 and number three portions of 30 inch force main and 48 inch gravity sewer easements that's described in the attached documentation tax map numbers 118 E 006 118 118 KE 118 K E zero zero four zero zero seven through zero two zero one one eight K E zero two seven zero two eight and zero three eight as shown on the attached map sub certain conditions item B in order is closed and abandon a sanitary sewering easement in the 400 block of power metal street beginning 20 feet northwest from MH number number S 1468016 then it's 287 feet to MH number S1468020 for a total of 287 linear feet tax map number one four six A F 008 as shown on the attached maps subject certain conditions thank you madam Clerk Council can I get a motion thank you council we have a motion on the floor to approve with a proper second if you have any comments or questions please hit your light seeing none all in favor opposed motion passes thank you madam clerk item eight a an ordinance to amend ordinance number one four two three nine also known as the fiscal year twenty twenty-five for twenty twenty-six operation of budget for the C that chat and go fixing the rate of taxation on all taxable properties in the city amend estimated general fund revenue amends sections five and five a so as to appropriate the same from general fund amendment section seven a to revise provision for sworn employees amend section seven e to adjust authorized physicians and to amend fire and police pay plans uh councilman dot ley thank you so much and uh madam clerk could you read that caption to the mayor's proposal into the record if it one little mayor's proposal to increase the tax rate to one dollar ninety-three cents thank you so much mad clerk with that I move to approve thank you thank you council we have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second um we are now open for debate councilman uh thank you madam chair i would like to make a motion to amend by removing the one ninety three proposal and replacing with the one sixty nine alternate version all right council we have a motion on the floor two amend with a proper second now we will debate the amendment looks like we've got councilman harvey on the board madam chair i would like to make a motion to

I would like to make a motion to amend by removing the 193 proposal and replacing with the 169 alternate version.

Second.

All right.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to amend with a proper second.

Now we will debate the amendment.

Looks like we've got councilman Harvey on the board.

Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion to amend the alternate version to a millage rate of a dollar seventy-three cents with the additional revenue of 4,38,000 will be appropriated to the Chattanooga Fire Department for the specific purpose to fund a new ladder truck and ladder company at Fire Station 21 in District 4.

Second.

Okay.

So council, we now have a secondary amendment.

Um which you have heard to go from a dollar 69 to a dollar 73 and fund the work at the ladder company 21.

Um is this to the alternate version?

This is an correct.

This is the set this is the secondary amendment.

It is a motion to amend the alternate version, correct?

Um councilman Davis.

Just as a point of order, um, Madam Chair, do we need to read into the record alternate version?

I don't I don't think we did that.

Yeah, well, when we uh when we get back to it, right now we're gonna be discussing the secondary amendment.

Okay, sure.

Um so councilman Harvey.

Um, did you read the the amended the amendment amendment in in its full for the record?

Yes, yes, you did.

Okay, thank you.

Um councilman Clark.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've got a uh just for clarity purposes.

We are voting uh for councilman Harvey's amendment.

Is that correct?

For yes $1.73 to include the yes.

So when I call for a vote next, what we will be voting on is Councilman Harvey's request that councilman Henderson's dollar sixty-nine plan be changed to a dollar seventy-three in order to fully fund the station 21 ladder company and truck, but just for clarity purposes, that's not we're actually not taking the vote on the alternative version until after this amendment.

Correct.

Correct.

We're changing the um the language of the alternate version to a vote in favor of this amendment to include the fire station okay.

Correct.

A vote in favor of the secondary amendment is not a vote in favor of chip's alternative of the chip's alternative versus the mayor's thank you for that clear.

Okay, uh, let's see here.

Councilman Elliott.

Um, I apologize, Councilman Henderson.

Are you are do you have some okay?

I apologize.

I've colors got a mixed up.

Uh so uh look in the spirit of compromise, and I think that's what we've all been trying to achieve up here is some kind of uh compromise uh you know position.

Um I can support uh councilman Harvey uh on this amendment that will include uh from what we now know is a much needed uh truck and crew uh for station 21.

So uh councilman Harvey, thank you for bringing that amendment to the floor, and I fully intend to support that amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Elliott, yes, thank you, madam chair.

So just to confirm uh this is adding station 21 to your proportion in the original proposal.

I guess Mayor Keller's administration's proposal is station 21 already in that one.

It is currently in Mayor Kelly's current version.

Okay, I just want to clarify.

So I if this amendment passes both versions will have station 21 in them, correct?

Correct.

Okay, just want to clarify and want everybody to know.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Yes, so both fully fund the requested fire and police raises and both fully fund ladder company 21.

Perfect, thank you.

Um okay, is there any other discussion on the secondary amendment?

All right, uh, since this is an amendment to an alternate version, do we still need a roll call vote for the we should do a roll call regardless of the case?

Yeah, because it is for the budget.

Yeah, okay, council.

Correct, yes.

We're now going to vote to approve the secondary amendment.

So approve the change to the alternate version.

This is not a vote in favor of the alternate version.

It is a vote to add ladder company 21.

So we will go around, Madam Clerk.

Councilman Henderson.

Yes.

Councilman Davis.

Yes.

Councilman Harvey.

Yes.

Councilman Clark?

Yes.

Councilwoman Burrs.

I apologize.

I just want to make sure this is uh councilman Harvey's amendment to Councilman Henderson's alternate version.

Correct.

To add a truck and crew.

So it does include the crew.

Yes.

At 1.73.

Correct.

Yes.

Councilwoman Totley.

No.

Councilman Elliott.

Yes.

Vice Chair Noel.

No.

Chairwoman Heel.

Yes.

Seven two.

Seven.

Okay.

All right.

So the secondary amendment passes.

So now we will move back to the primary amendment, which is the alternate version to move to approve the alternate version as amended.

Second.

Yes.

Is this motion in the debate?

No.

No.

No, the motion will open debate.

Okay.

Yes.

Do you say you're active?

Do you have any would you like to add?

We have a motion on the floor to approve as amended with a proper second.

So now of the alternate version.

Are you getting all this?

Alternate version of the getting all this?

Yes.

Okay.

So this we are now in the point in the meeting where we will debate the or ask questions or comments related to a dollar 73 tax millage rate.

Okay.

Councilman Elliott, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna say this, and I'm saying this for my district as a whole.

You know, when we started this process, and when I told my district months ago, even before we got elected, that this was gonna be a conversation we had.

Um I was honest with people, I didn't shy.

I said it's gonna be a tough conversation.

It's gonna be about taxes.

I said my biggest priority is to figure out how do we uh make sure that all of this does not fall back on the burden of taxpayers.

Uh I will give uh uh credit to the administration, thank you, Councilman Henderson, for helping us find the first five million dollars of this process to be reallocated towards that.

Um my hope was that we would look at line item cuts throughout this.

Unfortunately, we weren't able to peel back that bill as much.

Um I want it to be clear.

My biggest concern with some of the blankets percentage cuts is we don't know what we're cutting.

I think it's irresponsible.

I think it is dangerous.

I think it could potentially lead to unattended consequences, especially potentially losing um uh folks losing their jobs, and I will never pull the food out of one person's mouth to put it in another.

I can't do that.

I can't even vote on something that could potentially lead to that.

Um, but also uh, and I think I can't speak to other colleagues, but when I've had this conversation, you know, I've heard a lot of different folks.

I have some of my uh constituents here who have been adamantly like, hey, we don't want this, but also I have an overwhelming amount of my folks who elected me because they wanted more in their district.

My district has not gotten a lot of love over the years.

We have consistently ranked at the bottom, and it does not matter the income limits of your neighborhood.

One of my most affluent neighborhoods, Missionary Ridge, they have been pretty much written off and ignored on things that are very important to them.

Don't even get me started on some of my other neighborhoods, particularly my primarily black neighborhoods, Eastdale, Dalewood.

Like I don't even have to explain those situations because that is historic.

That has been almost systematic.

My people have been asking for so much throughout this, and when I tell them when I hear that, I've been attentional.

I'm saying, hey, you know this costs, right?

We're going through this budget conversation, you know.

I'll say, hey, you know, we got to consider this tax rate.

I genuinely did not make my mind up until yesterday.

But I'll mention what's going on with the tax rate and say, okay, but I need to storm this ditch cleared out in my my road on my street, or I need this road repaved.

And it's put me in a hard kind of uh position because personally I was raised in a city where I saw some of the dangers of this, and it has impacted and still impacts much of my family back in Nashville, and so I'm extremely sensitive to touching anyone's taxes.

This is why, as soon as I came out the gate, I said, how do we make sure we support seniors?

How we don't have many tools in our tool belts to protect people's homes.

So out of the gate, I was like, but senior tax freeze is one of the few things we have.

Out of the gate, we try to do it.

That dog wasn't hunting too well, so we can protect seniors.

But you know, um, this has been a hard conversation, and I don't take this lightly, but when I look at what is gonna happen coming from this conversation, my district is probably about to get some of the largest um investment in resources in a single year that we have ever had in district nine, and that I am proud of.

I am proud that my district is finally getting the attention and love and resources they deserve, and you know, I will have to continue to work with all of my neighbors who are gonna be disaffected one way or another to make sure that they can continue to live at peace in some form of fashion.

It is not only with resources like rental assistance or help the people pay their bills, but when are we gonna start having a conversation about demanding that we're no longer weight low-weight city?

Like this part of the conversation we have we're gonna be having with UAW in a couple weeks.

What does it look like when we demand that people pay folks livable wages so we don't have police officers or firefighters or people who's a teacher having to work two or three jobs to support each other?

I don't be honest, and it's a little brad, so y'all run with it all too often, but we get these major corporations come in, and it's almost like we pimp our people out and say we have cheap labor, bring the jobs here.

Now, to that point, I cannot change any of the many things that my folks have talked about.

I can't change the stadium bill, I can't change the bend, I can't change a lot of the stuff that's happened before I got here, but I can change making sure that my people are starting getting resources, and I can change what happens in the future.

Um as far as fighting to make sure that our people can have a better life in the city.

And so that's how I feel.

I appreciate my colleagues for presenting this, and uh this I'm glad we are reaching the sunset of this conversation, but I'll look forward to us continuing to having many more fruitful conversations.

Thank you, Councilman.

Do we have any other comments on this version?

I have something to say, but we will have a reader then.

Um so I am pleased with the idea that councilman Harvey brought to bring this to a dollar 73.

I think this is uh an excellent compromise that clearly prioritizes public safety.

Um, I'm also glad that as a council we were able to identify those things that are considered essential services in our districts, and so um when I look at the cuts that remain, I think we made a good faith effort to um challenge the administration to concentrate its efforts on things that are most important to this council, and from what I have seen of the department heads and our mayor, they are a group of people who do their work with thoughtfulness and intention, and a five percent cut to the departments that will receive cuts is not a draconian cut.

Um it is I think a fair thing to ask of our city government to tighten its belt at the same time that we are asking our constituents to tighten their belts.

Um, I do feel like this is a good compromise.

Um, and so I will be in support of this amendment.

Will you please read the alternate version into the record?

And do we need to also go ahead and give councilman Harvey's amendment to the clerk to read as well.

Do you have a copy of that?

I do not.

Let's get that passed down to him, please.

He's got it for now.

We get the whole thing into the record.

To approve it as amended.

Okay.

In ordinance to strike certain portions of ordinance number 14239, also known as the fiscal year 25 2025 2026 operation budget for the city of Chattanooga and to substitute the following provisions fixing the rate of taxation on all taxable properties in the city, amending estimated general fund revenues, amends sections five and five A so as to appropriate the same from general fund, amend section 7A to revise provision for sworn employees, and then section 7E to adjust authorized physicians and to amend fire and police pay plans.

And would you like for me to read the motion?

Yes, please, and then also the caption.

Okay, and the caption on that it says alternate version to increase the tax rate to $1.69 sponsored by Councilman Henderson and Davis.

Your motion motion to amend the alternate version to a millage rate of $1.73.

The additional revenue of $4,308,000 will be appropriated to the Chattanooga Fire Department for the specific purpose to fund a new ladder truck and ladder company at Fire Station 21 and District 4.

Thank you very much.

Okay, council.

We are now at the point where we are going to vote in favor or in opposition to this alternate version with its amendment.

Everybody clear?

Okay.

So a vote, yes, would be in favor of a budget or a millage rate of a dollar 73.

Good.

Okay.

Think we're all good.

Correct, a dollar 73.

Yes.

All right.

Madam Clerk, please um take the vote.

Councilman Henderson.

Yes.

Councilman Davis?

Yes.

Councilman Harvey?

Yes.

Councilman Clark?

No.

Councilwoman Burrs.

No.

Councilwoman Dotley?

No.

Councilman Elliott?

No.

Vice Chair Noel?

No.

Chairwoman Hill.

Yes.

That is five no's.

Thank you very much.

Motion fails.

Now we will go back to, we will return to our main motion, which is the mayor's proposal to increase the tax rate to a dollar ninety-three.

This is item 8A.

We already have a motion to approve, and we have a proper second.

Is there any further discussion before we have a vote on this item to raise the millage rate to a dollar 93?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please take the roll.

Councilman Elliott.

Yes.

Councilwoman Dotley.

Councilwoman Burrs.

Yes.

Councilman Clark?

Yes.

Councilman Harvey?

No.

Councilman Davis?

No.

Councilman Henderson?

No.

Vice Chair Noel?

Yes.

Chairwoman Heel?

No.

It's five yeses.

Okay.

We have a decision.

Item B, please.

In ordinance to amend the capital budget ordinance number 14240, known as the fiscal year 2025-2026 capital budget, appropriating authorizing or allocating funds to the capital improvements budget for the fiscal year 2025-2026 to increase the capital budget by 13,350,000 from general fund operations.

Second.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with a proper second.

Do we have any questions or comment?

Madam Clerk.

Roll, yes.

Councilman Elliott.

Yes.

Councilwoman Dotley.

Yes.

Councilwoman Burrs.

Yes.

Councilman Clark?

Yes.

Councilman Harvey?

Yes.

Councilman Davis?

No.

Councilman Henderson?

Yes.

Vice Chair Noel?

Yes.

Chairwoman Hill.

Yes.

Okay.

Resolutions, please.

Item A.

The resolution authorizing the Department of Community Development to apply for and if awarded accept the older American Act Senior Center Services Grant by the Southeast Tennessee Development District, Southeast Tennessee Area Agency on Aging and Disability for C Community Based Services and Activities for a grant period of July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026, and the amount of 20,000.

Motion to approve.

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor to approve with a proper second.

Looks like we don't have any questions or comments.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Item B.

A resolution confirming the appointment of Jonathan Mason to the Health Educational and Housing Facility Board for District 4 with a term beginning on August 27, 2025, and ending on August 26, 2031.

Councilman Harvey.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um Jonathan is here in the crowd today and appreciate his service.

He's a great member of our community and has served our community in various capacities.

So appreciate you uh stepping up and serving from the great district four.

Uh-huh.

Thank you.

Would you like to make a motion?

Motion approved.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Um any questions or comments?

All in favor, opposed.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Jonathan, for your service.

Yeah.

Item C.

A resolution authorizing the Department of Parks and Outdoors to apply for and if awarded accept a blue cross healthy places grant for the renovation of pavilion park in the amount of two million dollars.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Do you have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion passes.

All right.

Public works.

We're gonna take items D and E as a package, please.

Item D.

A resolution authorizing the administrative for the Department of Public Works to award contract number Y2507201 Carver Community Center Gym Floor Replacement to Wilder Contracting LLC of Chattanooga, Tennessee in the amount of 128,968 with a contingency in the amount of $3,27 for a total amount of 132,175.

Item E, a resolution authorizing the administrator for the Department of Public Works Award contract number E2102201 Watkins Building ACM abatement and mode remediation to Elo Green Company Inc.

of Newmarket, Tennessee, in the amount of $94,542 and 55 cents with a contingency in the amount of $9,450 for a total amount of 104,042 and 55 cents.

Move to approve council.

We have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Do I have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion passes.

Item F, please.

And resolution authorizing the chief of police to apply for and if award accept a grant from the Hamilton County District 3 Homeland Security Council, the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, State Homeland Security Grant Program 2024, awarded Hamilton County in the amount of 182,46 and 46 cents, which will be administered to the Chattanooga Police Department and other municipalities.

We're in the Chattanooga Police Department.

We'll receive $33,261.50 to purchase equipment for a grant period ending January 31, 2027.

Councilman Henderson.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion on the floor to approve with the proper second.

Do you have any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Opposed?

Motion passes.

Moving to purchases, please.

For fleet.

It's for a one-time purchase of two caterpillar backhoe loaders used by public works in the amount of 264,457.

This purchase will be utilizing the state of Tennessee contract.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Council, we have a motion on the floor to approve with a proper second.

Any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay, we don't have any other purchases this evening.

Committee reports.

Start with Councilman Elliott.

No report, madam.

Okay.

Councilwoman Dotley.

Yes, madam chair.

Thank you so much.

I just want to uh as far as committee reports.

We do have a public hearing today regarding the one um the 169 uh certified tax rate and thank you everybody for participating.

Clearly, we have just passed the budget uh amendment at the 1900 at the 193 rate, the mayor's proposal.

I thank my council members and the public for participating and engaging in this process, and grateful that we will not be here next week.

All right, thank you so much, madam chairman.

Councilwoman burst.

Thank you, madam chair.

We had a uh planning and zoning committee meeting today and reviewed the cases that'll be coming up on September 9th.

And had a great presentation from Karen Rennick with RPA as usual, and that's my committee report.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Councilman Henderson.

No report.

Councilman Davis.

No report.

Councilman Harvey.

No report.

Councilman Clark.

No report.

Vice Chairwoman Knoll.

No report.

Okay, thank you very much.

We now reach the point in our meeting where we are happy to recognize persons who are here and would like to address the council.

If you are here and would like to address the council, please sign up behind the podium and listen while our attorney reads the rules.

And at the end of the council business meeting here, the chair will recognize members of the public who wish to address the council, and here's your rules.

Each speaker wishing to address the council can only be recognized at the microphone up front for that purpose.

You can't have more than three minutes to speak at this time.

You can address the council only upon matters within their legislative and quasi judicial authority and not upon matters which are not under their authority or regulated by other governmental bodies or agencies.

Do not engage in vulgar or obscene language nor use of order to personally attack or personally denigrate others and address the council as a whole and not uh make comments directed towards individual council members.

And lastly, do not engage in disorderly conduct or disrupting a public meeting, which is prohibited by Tennessee law, and someone commits that offense if a person substantially obstructs or interferes with the meeting by physical action or verbal utterance with the intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting or gathering.

Having stated those rules, please go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

First, I would like to thank Councilmember Elliott for introducing the UAW resolution that will be on the agenda soon.

Even considering this vote sends a message that Chattanooga is willing to engage with the dignity of union laborers and the future of worker-led economic development.

And that matters.

Well, one has been just introduced.

Um, one is to support the UAW and also whether to approve the property tax increase that would disproportionately impact Alice households, asset limited, income constrained, employed.

These are the very workers you're being asked to stand with today.

Many are renters, caregivers, and union members.

They are already stretched thin.

And then came the flood.

I've worked directly with families displaced by the recent disaster.

Families who lost homes, vehicles, medications, and child care overnight.

That sentence could honestly go on and on and on.

I've worked with families who lost everything.

For Alice households, an event like this isn't just disruptive.

It's life altering.

There is no cushion.

We're not talking about a month-to-month budget.

We're talking about a week to week or a payday to payday, where these people are trying to understand how they're gonna make groceries and rent at the same time.

You should never have to choose between a roof over your head and food in your fridge.

There's no savings to rebuild, no margin for error, and they are still recovering, still navigating insurance denials, mold remediation, and emergency medical costs to raise property taxes now on the heels of a disaster is to deepen that wound.

It risks pushing families from recovery into crisis.

They're already in crisis.

Alone supporting the UAW resolution is a step towards equity, but passing a tax hike that destabilizes housing for working families sends the opposite message.

It says we support labor in theory, but not in practice.

Thank you again.

Councilman Elliott.

And then show that same courage when rejecting a tax plan that punishes the very people who build, care for, and protect this city, especially in its darkest hours.

Thank you.

Yeah, I um is it out of order for me to make a comment about okay about the Yeah, I just want to say thank you for your presentation and for your courage to stand up.

Um I want to make sure that you're getting the message out, and I hope you have, especially if you've been working with Councilman Elliott, that everybody who had damaged has got to report their information to the city council clerk, because we're in a situation where we have to reach a threshold for money to be for money to be received in our community.

Right.

And the more people that report, the closer we get to that threshold.

Right.

We have not met that front threshold.

So very limited in what we can receive from like FEMA and Red Cross.

Right.

But has everybody reported?

Everybody that lives in the city or county, have they reported their information to either or I'll put failures out this week and find out whatever I can.

So they need to report directly to say that again, please.

You can send it to uh council hyphen clerk at Chattanooga.gov.

Okay.

And really, I don't care how small the the damage was, um, they need to report it.

Yeah.

So a representative can come out to their house to get the information so we can build that that value up for everybody across the city, not just a few.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you for being here.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

John John, District 9, uh, congratulations.

You've you have yourself the start of a budget plan, and I hope that moving forward we can work towards something that creates a sort of financial stability for our city moving forward.

And with that, I want to talk about something that I saw a couple years back at with Civic that the Chattanooga Design Studio brought in a guy named Alan Malik who looked at some stats from Chattanooga and found that over a 20-year period we had 20,000 jobs added, over a thousand a year.

But during that same period, Chattanoogens lost 4,000 jobs.

And that happens in part because people from outside of Chattanooga can find more affordable places to live and um and commute in.

So we're talking people coming as far as Dayton, Tennessee, Walker County, um, uh Lookout Mountain, Signal Mountain.

And I don't fault people for seeking out opportunities.

Cities have always been regional beacons of economic hope to their surrounding areas.

They're the centers of culture of innovation and of art, and we should continue to be that.

But when a development pattern becomes upside down, when our resources become overstretched, and when our infrastructure becomes over taxed, this is when people start pushing out to those fringes, and it ends up exacerbating as that money becomes tax revenue for other municipalities.

It is in this that I think that more than ever we need to re-look at and look at the small changes that we can make within our zoning in order to allow for more thoughtful development within our city and within the places where we already have infrastructure and infrastructure that we can afford to improve.

With that, um, I'm going to send all of you an image that shows the city based on the tax revenue generated by neighborhood and whether or not it can afford the infrastructure around it.

To give you an example of the type of neighborhoods that are pulling this off and what zoning has allowed them to do that.

Um, I'd be happy for your response.

I'm also working with a collection of incremental small-skill developers who are doing this work quietly, um, despite all the hurdles, and they're looking for opportunities to have these hurdles taken away.

These are people who listen to their neighborhood, who listen to their constituents and work with preservationists and small businesses alike to try to uplift their communities.

Um, with that, it's been a long day, so I'm gonna give you all 49 seconds back.

Don't say I didn't do nothing for you.

Good evening.

My name is Revan Ann Jones Pierre.

I'm currently president of the Chattanooga Hamilton County branch of the NAACP, and I am a resident in District 9.

Um, before I um say what I have to say about the NACP, I would like to uh make an observation that I have watched the process through which you all have come to your decision as to what the millage rate will be uh to cover the budget expenses.

One thing, two things I see falling short, and uh one um councilman Henderson mentioned, and one uh councilman Elliott mentioned.

Uh that is that you need to play pay closer attention to what's going on in terms of the revenue and uh the expenses, and it's the year-round thing, it's not just a one-time thing when the budget comes.

I have noticed that you've passed resolutions.

Each resolution is a part of the budget.

So if you're spending money or getting money, it should be included in the budget.

And nobody can say that they have to take a 13 column pad to do it.

We have computers.

We even have a quantum computer that's being built not far from here.

Uh so um let us realize that this is a daily thing, and it should be computerized, and I'm almost sure it is.

Uh, and you should feed in whatever you're doing, uh, if it's an expense or if it's revenue.

Uh, you should never pass a budget unless they tell you, uh, never pass a resolution and unless they tell you what the cost is going to be to the city and to our taxpayers.

Each year, the NACP has what they call Ruby Hurley, uh Gala dinner.

And uh doing that time we recognize individuals in the community who have done noteworthy uh things.

Uh we also recognize uh a firefighter, and we also have the ref Cotheran award that is given to a police officer.

We recognize that uh other people in the community, there's the president's award that's given to community people.

There are a lot of people in our community who are doing great things, and we recognize them, and we know that there are other organizations that recognize, but of course, the NACP we feel like ours is top notch.

So I you all should have received a correspondence asking you to participate, and I hope you will.

It's September, oh, excuse me, October 30th, uh at the uh convention center.

And this year we decided not to have a speaker.

We're having uh an entertainer, Ruben Studd, who was the second person to win um American Idol.

So I hope you all were participating.

Thank you very much.

That's perfect.

How's it going?

Andrew Jones, District 2.

First time I came here and spoke, didn't really know what to expect, but I know that transparency is at the core of everything that I care about.

I mean, it doesn't matter if you like me, if you don't like me.

I'm gonna be transparent.

You can ask my fiancee.

First time I came here and spoke, I spoke about President Eisenhower talking about the industrial military complex.

I think we have a problem with the industrial information complex.

Around 2011, there was the perfect harmony of the amount of information that we were getting uh via the iPhone, kicking that off.

And you can imagine how long we're at that perfect threshold of how much information we're getting back in 2011.

I know when all of you are elected, you have hopefully good intentions, and you haven't been tapped on the shoulder by someone that you know a secret about, and maybe they know a secret about you and they can leverage you in some way, or maybe you're trying to go have a cocktail that's a little out of your budget as frequently as you can.

But information is absolutely the key to why people come up here and complain.

They feel like the budget's too high.

If you like, why did we spend so much money on rebranding Chattanooga?

What are we rebranding?

It's a great town.

My fiance and I moved here because we wanted to live in an old hick town.

The belt buckle of the Bible belt, someone told me.

That's why I moved here.

Come to find out we have the fastest internet in the world since 2009.

That's all the branding you need.

We need transparency.

We're the fastest internet in the world.

Why not?

Every single budget item is on there.

For instance, a police officer who is being underpaid.

But when the police officer go feels to go to fill up his tank on his car, say 2 a.m.

Why not have that immediately transact?

Hey, this amount of money was spent at this time, and this person owns the credit card.

Because it's it's not no one's gonna trust you until you get there.

Until I can audit you.

You're the fastest internet in the world.

What are we doing?

The last thing I'll say is the politics is disgusting, guys.

There's so many people up here saying so many good things about transparency and asking questions to the mayor.

I have a question to the mayor.

Why wasn't he?

Why was he looking all dilapidated on a Monday at 5 30 at Whole Foods last week?

That's a question.

The effort needs to be there.

Find agreements where you can seek transparency.

Seek transparency.

Well, thank you, Council.

I'm watching the clock this time.

Money Bill, the homeless journalist for Gray Hair like Fox, a man with a trillion dollar divorce.

And over 43 years of broadcasting.

I still have trouble as you all experience controlling equipment.

But it's all in how you react under pressure.

That's the key.

I nearly destroyed your search service providers, your fast gig.

In fact, it shut my phone off last week because it could not explain to me how a black man, a homeless journalist, forced the entire recusal on July the 22nd of your entire Hamilton County circuit court.

We were debating Marty Bell at a machine as to whether or not it's true because it hadn't been printed in your daily paper.

And that's where the fight began.

My life, my cases is not determined as to whether or not you have a story printed in your daily paper, or it runs on your news 9, 3 or 12.

Everything that you've ran in your paper, everything you've showed on your news 9, 3, and 12 about Monty Bell, the homeless journalist, the gray hair like Fox has been a lie.

And you use your law enforcement to cover up your crimes.

Let me get to this real quick.

I was trying to get this thing adjusted.

It's uh about a young man that knows more about what happened at the 614 Salvation Army that you've all ever printed.

And I was trying to line this thing up so you can hear it.

And uh I I hope that it's right.

Let's see what we can do.

Just tell us what happened.

I went to a uh command office to get a letter for Monte Bay at the time, and I got it from a man named Mustar Randy, and told him to take the six point four and give it to a Richard Bucket, make sure that he did the letter at the top.

I had to stop at the front desk and give it to a guy named Mingo.

Daddy Mingo.

That's who I gave the letter to.

Okay, all of a sudden you got out of my daddy mingle's hand, went to a original buck and office.

And when it did get to written buffer out of it, they opened the mail up.

The mayor's mail, we want folks to be open and got out of.

I never got JB's letter.

Mayo that one.

I'll take those man.

How'd you call what you want somebody?

Well, you got somebody else's mail.

An old man wants to come back, come and get his mail.

Now they get flyed that they opened his mail.

Yes, yes, the law took over somebody else's mail up to read it.

And okay, we're gonna stop there.

211 billion 34 million is what you owe.

Please, Mr.

Attorney, tell JB Bennett this fraud on the entire 11th judicial district court.

Hey, I'm Blake Ray, and I'm District 9.

And I just wanted to say thank you to Henderson, Davis, Harvey, and Hill for you know trying to bring this tax rate down.

Um, and Elliot, I know you've been working really hard for our district, so I really appreciate that.

Um, I don't have any relationship with either any of the other um people, but I respect that you made the decision that was best for your area.

I just hope and encourage um y'all to keep talking with the mayor.

I think a lot of people just had a problem with um the communication that's coming out of the mayor's office.

I think that um if I could say anything, it's that I worked with the mayor on various issues in the past, and I really wish that we could have discussion without it being viewed like a hostile conversation, you know, like that is what makes democracy gray is that we can talk with one another and work on these issues.

I think you know, there's a lot of people who are very concerned about the elders in our community and honestly, young families being able to get a house in this area.

I see this assessment that happened through the county, and it happened, and they're looking at these rates that you know people can't afford those houses anymore at that price, and I think that's very clear.

Um, and I think that that's gonna change in a year, and they're gonna get, you know, hopefully next year.

I I would request that each of you really push your um constituents to ask the county to reassess that home so that 2025 rates and whatever's gonna happen going forward, I imagine it's gonna be lower, be you know, incorporated into this new reassessment.

So maybe next year this rate isn't dramatically gonna harm people, but like we're looking at what happened now, and uh Emerson Birsch did some great data that I think he said he emailed y'all um to show like you know it's the percentage increases that are the concern.

So all that to say, I just asked that the mayor stop having this like aggressive communication with his constituents and like hear what people are worried about and address it in a more civil manner, and I appreciate that everyone on the you know city council is trying to work together.

Um it's just like it's kind of coming off a little bit like a pissing match, and I really would rather it be more collaborative.

So I hope that you can hear that going forward and hear it's out of concern for the people who live here, and it's not a personal attack against y'all.

It's not counting commission, okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Looks like we don't have anybody else who is here to speak.

Is there anyone?

All right, council.

I see no other questions.

Thank you.

We are adjourned.

I have one more.

Sorry, last minute.

But um, I just want to add um to what whatever he said and everybody that's been saying and speaking on behalf of the single moms and single dads out out there working two or two or three jobs, working Saturday and Sundays, and the struggle is there already, and I don't think so that increasing taxes at this point is a good point.

Maybe none of you guys are gonna see the impact because everybody's gonna see salary increases, but they're not.

They're getting more jobs and keep alone, dads and mother paying child child care that they cannot afford.

They cannot, they can even afford uh health care insurance in doing this to the community.

Why we don't look at the expenses?

There's not enough capital.

I don't know much about more uh about a budget, but I can tell you that every penny that I spend, I wash it.

I put an eye on every single penny, and single moms and single dots out there, that's what they're doing.

And everybody here is gonna have a really good Christmas out there, they're not.

People lost their homes, people are losing their hopes, the trust on any of all of you trust because we trust on every single of yours.

I trust on the police department.

They should have had a race a long time ago.

Why they didn't, but somebody else got a salary increase.

We're not getting salary increases.

People are losing jobs.

There's more laid off coming.

What are we gonna do?

What are they gonna do?

Do we care about that?

Are we washing overheart, oversold?

But what are we doing to Chatano?

Do we really care?

Do we really care about those kids?

We know that mom noted that going to going tonight at 10 or 11 o'clock because they're working two or three jobs.

Nobody else cares.

We have to do better than that.

Wash out the budget, watch out how we spend in every single penny.

I do it.

A lot of people here maybe do it, but people with a big salary maybe not, but we are.

We are washing every single penny.

So let's do better, not just an increase on taxes.

We cannot afford any more increases.

Thank you.

Ma'am, ma'am, will you please tell us your name and your district for the record?

I don't represent any district.

I represent single moms and single dads, and my name is Sandra Yana.

Okay, thank you very much.

All right, council, we are adjourned.