Chattanooga Industrial Development Board Meeting - February 2, 2026
Chattanooga Industrial Development Board Meeting - February 2, 2026
This meeting of the Chattanooga Industrial Development Board (IDB) covered the approval of prior meeting minutes, a clean audit report for fiscal year 2025, quarterly progress updates on two major wastewater projects, an explanation of the purchasing process for economic development software, and a comparative review of IDB staffing models across Tennessee. The board also discussed local contractor participation and future staffing considerations.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes Approval: The board unanimously approved the minutes from the January 5, 2026 meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No members of the public addressed the board.
Discussion Items
-
Audit Report and Management Representation Letter: Gary Williams of HHM CPAs presented the FY2025 audit results. The audit received a clean opinion with no significant deficiencies, material weaknesses, or compliance issues. Operations were consistent with FY2024, except for a $28 million increase related to E2I2 initiatives. The board passed a resolution ratifying the execution of a management representation letter with HHM. Weston Porter, City CFO, confirmed the letter is standard and required by auditing standards. The audit has already been filed with the state comptroller's office.
-
Quarterly Project Updates – Wastewater Department: Mark Heinzer, wastewater administrator, provided updates on two projects:
- E2I2 Wet Weather Storage Facility: Located near the I-75/I-24 split, this project reduces sanitary sewer overflows. It is 55.74% complete, on budget and schedule. Total project cost is approximately $153 million.
- Class A Power Project: An overhaul of processes at the wastewater treatment facility, including water and biosolids treatment. The basis of design report was recently received; the project is 25% complete on the design phase and slightly behind schedule due to extended alternatives analysis, but still on track for overall completion. No budget issues yet.
- Board member Phil questioned local contractor and worker participation in the $153 million project, noting that some contractors are based outside Chattanooga (e.g., Birmingham). Mr. Heinzer agreed to provide data on local expenditures and number of local contractors. Another board member noted significant local concrete supply and trucking, suggesting substantial local involvement.
-
Overview of Purchasing Process for CivicServe Economic Development Software: Sharita Allen, Senior Advisor for Economic and Workforce Development, explained the procurement process that led to the $44,000 CivicServe software purchase (funded from administrative fees on TIFs). Staff had previously brought the item to the board without full documentation; this overview clarified the steps: IT research and discovery, vendor review and scoring, and reference checks. A report in the board packet included evaluations of multiple vendors. Board members asked about references and local vendor involvement. Staff committed to providing more thorough documentation for future funding requests.
-
IDB Staffing Comparison: Winston Brooks, Director of Economic Development, presented a comparison of IDB administrative models across Tennessee’s largest cities (Nashville, Memphis, Knoxville, Clarksville-Montgomery). Key findings:
- Chattanooga and Nashville operate with minimal staffing (1–2 dedicated staff plus shared city resources).
- Memphis uses a separate organization (EDGE) with 9 dedicated staff, supported by higher fee structures and additional operations (port authority, foreign trade zone).
- Knoxville uses the Knoxville Community Development Corporation with 1–3 staff.
- Clarksville-Montgomery operates through a county-led economic development council with 3 staff.
- Board members discussed the possibility of the IDB paying its own staff (currently the board has no employees). Winston Brooks agreed to further explore implications, including fee schedule adjustments and the option of leasing employees from the city.
Key Outcomes
- Resolution Approved: The resolution ratifying the management representation letter for the FY2025 audit passed unanimously.
- Data Requested: The board requested a breakdown of local contractor expenditures for the wet weather storage facility.
- Staffing Research Ongoing: Staff will continue to assess IDB staffing models and report back with more details, including Hamilton County’s IDB and potential funding mechanisms.
Meeting Transcript
Minutes approved for our January 5th meeting. Um I will entertain a motion for minute approval. Thank you. Second. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Now I'll recognize any um anybody wishing to address the board. Is there anybody here this morning looking to address the board today? Okay, thank you. We will move into our first resolution. A resolution ratifying action taken by the industrial development board chair and city finance officer to execute a management representation letter for the auditor of Anderson. Haterson and McCullough. PLLC for fiscal year ending June 30th, 2025. JMCPAs. We'll keep this very brief and very high level, but uh before we walk through the details, just give a quick high overview of the 2025 audit. Uh operations were pretty pretty in line with what we would would have expected with 2024 biggest increase is 28 million dollars for the E12 or E2I2, I should say, uh uh initiatives. Um so there's an increase in revenue in that. But uh outside of that, like I said, operations consistent from year to year. Uh overall good news to report. Uh audit came back clean with no findings, no internal control issues, and no compliance concerns. So uh I'll turn it over to Garrett to go over our required communications. Okay. So I'm Gary Williams with HHM. Like you said, our uh audit report, we had a clean opinion, which is the best opinion you can have. We didn't have any uh significant deficiencies or material weaknesses noted during the audit. Um our audit is the purpose of it is for us to make sure the financials are materially correct. Um so that is uh we look at transactions and make sure uh for the most part everything's in line with what we'd expect. Um significant accounting policies. Uh those didn't really change from last year, those are all in note one. It's got a million paragraphs in there with everything for the IDB. Uh accounting estimates, we look at estimates to make sure those are reasonable. Um there was no significant uh estimates noted. Uh management accounting staff, we had no issues working with uh the accounting department. Um always happy to work with them. Uh and they were very helpful in getting us what we need to get our audit done. Uh we weren't aware with any consultations with consultations with other accountants during our audit. We had no uncorrected misstatements during the course of our audit. Um we were not aware of any fraud or illegal acts throughout the audit. Um that's good. It's always it makes these conversations a little more interesting. Uh but no, that was good. Um and then we really didn't have any significant significant matters uh that we discussed with management during the audit. So overall it's a pretty boring audit. It went well. We got it done much sooner than typically uh we have it done, so we're happy with that. Um nothing else really to know. If there's any questions about any of that happy to answer, and I just want to add one thing, but Weston Porter, CFO for the city of Chattanooga. The resolution is related to uh the management representation letter. And so with that is it's our representation, uh, the board and city finances.
openpublica.com