Chattanooga City Council Meeting - February 3, 2026: Special Exceptions Permits and Council Rules Revisions
Chattanooga City Council Meeting - February 3, 2026
The Chattanooga City Council met on February 3, 2026, at 6:59 p.m. to discuss special exceptions permits (primarily for liquor stores) and proposed changes to council rules, including chair pro tem selection, voting thresholds, and council expense reimbursements. The meeting began with a unanimous approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.
Discussion Items
Special Exceptions Permits
- Council reviewed a recent ruling that treating special exceptions (e.g., for liquor stores) as administrative approvals limited council’s discretion to deny. Councilwoman Dotley argued that council should retain authority due to district-specific knowledge and provided data from the Chattanooga Police Department on crime in a half-mile radius around a proposed liquor store. She cited code 5-109(c) regarding public health, safety, morals, and general welfare as a basis for denial.
- Councilman Henderson suggested amending the code like payday lending regulations to limit the number or density of liquor stores in an area. Councilman Clark noted that Plan Chattanooga has not yet been formally adopted, but could serve as a guide.
- Councilwoman Burrs proposed adding a pre-application checklist requiring applicants to submit police and code enforcement data for a defined radius. Councilman Harvey raised vaping stores as a related concern, noting a new state law effective January 1, 2026.
- Council agreed unanimously (show of hands: 7-0) to continue having special exceptions permits come to council. They directed the city attorney to draft code amendments strengthening language in Chapters 5 and 38, including alignment with Plan Chattanooga, distance restrictions, and public safety data requirements. The draft is to be reviewed at the March 17 strategic planning session.
Council Rules – Chair Pro Tem Appointment
- Chairwoman Hill proposed allowing the chair to appoint a pro tem in advance for meetings where both chair and vice chair are absent. Councilwoman Dodge opposed, arguing the existing election process is democratic and simple. Councilman Harvey noted potential conflicts if the appointed pro tem is also absent. Council declined to adopt the proposal, preferring to retain current election by membership when needed.
Council Rules – Voting Threshold (Five Votes Requirement)
- Chairwoman Hill questioned the rule requiring five “yes” or five “no” votes for any action, which effectively requires a unanimous vote when only a quorum of five members is present. Councilwoman Clark argued it is undemocratic and may contradict Robert’s Rules. Councilman Davis supported changing to a simple majority of the quorum to prevent intentional absences from blocking votes. Councilman Henderson noted the rule also applies to boards (BOZA, IDB, etc.). Council directed the attorney to research the pros and cons and report back on March 17.
Council Rules – Expense Reimbursement and Transfers
- Chairwoman Hill proposed increasing the annual per-member expense reimbursement from $6,000 to $10,000 and clarifying that funds can be used for a broad range of council expenses (not just travel). She also proposed allowing transfers of surplus funds between council members within the fiscal year. Councilwoman Dotley supported with an approval process (e.g., email request and acknowledgment). Councilman Clark asked for a list of allowable expenditures; Councilman Elliott requested historical spending data. The attorney noted that funds cannot be rolled over between fiscal years per charter appropriation rules.
- Council unanimously agreed (show of hands) to the increase to $10,000, reword the rule to cover “council expenses,” and allow transfers between members with a documented approval process. The city attorney will draft revised language. Council requested a five-year spending breakdown (travel vs. other expenses) and a clear list of acceptable purchases from the procurement department.
Other Discussion
- Councilman Clark requested updating committee names (e.g., “Community Development Committee” instead of “Equity and Community Development”) and suggested forming a Human Resources committee for employee appeals. Council agreed to consider these in future strategic planning.
Key Outcomes
- Special Exceptions Permits: Council voted unanimously to retain council authority and directed the city attorney to draft code amendments for stronger denial criteria, with review on March 17.
- Chair Pro Tem: No change adopted; existing election process remains.
- Voting Threshold: Research ordered; decision deferred to March 17.
- Expense Reimbursement: Increase to $10,000, broader expense categories, and inter-member transfers approved in principle; formal language to be drafted and brought for a vote at the next meeting.
- No formal ordinances were adopted at this meeting; all changes require future votes.
Meeting Transcript
Yeah. Um so uh before we get moving, can I get a motion on the minutes, please? So move. All right, minutes we'll start out um without objection. So first thing we are gonna talk about today, council, and welcome back from Asheville. By the grace, thank you. When did you go back? Last night. You're cute. I got back last night. My my daughter finally got power on last evening. It's it's folks that still don't have power. We're expecting it to be like another week and a half. Oh, isn't it? Just some time. So it's like it's what they say. It makes you real appreciative for uh EPB. Oh jeez. So um first thing we're gonna talk about today is special exceptions permits. Um most of this I think will be led by our attorney um about the fact that we were struggling with uh how might we when we say no to a special exceptions permit, do we have the authority to say no? But we have it set up in our processes that we want to see those. Okay. Um and so uh this has come up, council uh most often as it relates to liquor stores. Um, but we do also have special permit, special exceptions permits for other things and at a uh uh I believe is a council um and we can change our minds, but historically this council has wanted to have um the ability to have special exceptions permits um for certain certain things. So um Philip, will you uh walk us through some of the ideas that you have for how we might choose to change our um our language for how we assess whether or not we're gonna give a special exceptions permit and your recommendations. Yeah, as as y'all are uh familiar, we've had a I guess a ruling at least uh that uh said that um it's basically an administrative matter uh whenever y'all are looking at uh a special exception for a liquor store or any entity in that regard, and then as long as something meets the provisions of your code that y'all have adopted, you're basically supposed to take an administrative act and approval. And uh that that is the issue that comes into being each time exactly how far can you go on a discussion without becoming what is called arbitrary and capricious under the zoning requirements here that we have under under state law. So y'all have uh a few provisions where there are special exceptions that have to be granted only by the um the city council. And one of those is the liquor store provision that we have in the code. And I believe there are other uh provisions. I I don't have my sections up here right now, I will find those for you here on the the city code here of the authority that you have to look at on there. But the um the provisions in the code in my mind here is do you want to keep uh having those come before you or do you want those to go just like other special exceptions permits go to the board of zoning appeals and there's a determination by that body that goes forward? Obviously, y'all can contact us there are nine members on that board just like there are on the city council and give them your concerns that you might have in those matters, but uh whether you want to continue to have those items going forward. And I was uh may I say something. I would add that with Bozo, they have very specific rules that they follow. So even if a council person calls and said I don't feel good about this, that they they have much less latitude because they are created by us for the rules that we create. Um councilwoman Dotley. Yes, in in God's favor today, I actually have something on future considerations that I was gonna I said next to you because I was gonna ask you about it. You sure with the game if I remember. And so uh I actually and I think they should continue to come to us because we are able to research more information than typically RPA or the board is on the appeal for instance in this case, and I'm gonna make my statement today about it. But um I was able to because I know because we know the areas, like we know our district, we know what's there, and so for this particular liquor store coming up, uh I knew because it was like two blocks from where I used to live that it was a lot, a lot of activity, a lot of criminal things happening, and so I was able to contact CPD and get the number of calls for service, the criminal incidents and all this information. Um, and so with that in our as we'll get when we get the RPA report, even though it says you know it's only X amount away from the school, X amount away, you know, because of that they approve it, but that doesn't sometimes align with the actual actions that are happening in the community. So for instance, but one of the parts of this, which is what I like in our code chapter 5, section 5109 C, because I'm gonna cite that specifically. Yeah, that's good. Is that the consistent consistency of the proposal with the intent and purpose of this article to promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare? And because there was a those four things when we see something coming up in our district that does not promote those things, I think we should have the ability to deny it. And so that is um what I am like that would I be telling all day, but I'm gonna get y'all all the numbers later on. But um, so like this one is coming up, you know. I plan to not support it because it doesn't support that. So when it comes to us, would it be reasonable, I guess, for us to cite that code as a reason for denial based on the evidence that we have, because then we're able to get with I didn't even get with code enforcement or any, but I could have done code enforcement, public work, you know, got with all our court apartments and said because RPA is just gonna look at what they're supposed to look at, and they do, they do a good job, and that's and thanks to their report though, it gives me the avenue to say I'm not supporting it.
openpublica.com