Good afternoon, everybody.

I'd like to call to order the July twenty-eighth meeting of the Chattanooga City Council.

Um, and it's my turn to do the pledge and invocation today, but I have asked a young man who needs no introduction, uh Jack Dooley, who is here with us just about every week, I believe, um just asked him if he would honor us by leading us in our pledge and invocation uh this afternoon, and he's graciously agreed.

So Jack Please say to pledge with me as you will.

First of all, um first Timothy two.

First of all, then I urge supplications, prayers, intersections, and thanksgivings be made for all people.

For kings and and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet, godly and dignified in every way.

Amen.

Um if you haven't been with us before, um just give kind of a rundown of how our meetings operate so you'll know what to expect.

Uh first I would just ask everybody with silence or turn off your cell phone so we don't have any uh distractions during the meeting.

Um our meetings operate in two parts.

So the first part uh is what we call an agenda session, um where we will um have some special presentations, uh approval of our minutes from our last meeting, and then um council will go through items that are on our agenda to be voted on this evening, as well as items on our agenda for next week and then items further out, uh three or more weeks into the future.

Um and that's a time for council um up here on the dais to ask questions or uh raise any comments that they might like to make about any um particular item.

Um after that, um we have committee and department reports, uh which we don't um have one of those today, and so we will uh take a recess at that point.

And when we come back from our recess, uh that will be the business portion of our meeting where we will vote on all the items on our agenda for this evening.

At the end of that business meeting, the very end of our meeting in total today, there will be a time for members of the public who would like to address the council on any topics that you'd like to address us on.

And when the time comes for that, we would just ask that you line up at the podium down front here, and our city attorney will read some rules at that time.

So with that being said, we do by way of special presentation today, have some guests here from the Chattanooga Housing Authority.

So yesterday was a pretty busy day for our HEB board with some affordable housing proposals across the city.

And one of those was in my district, and I know there were some in other districts as well.

And so I just asked them to come today, and I think they have a few short um slides to present and some information, and then they'll be gracious enough to answer questions we might have.

Thank you, Chairman.

As most of you know, my name's Joe Kelly.

I'm the general counsel for the Chattanooga Housing Authority.

Betsy McGriot, our executive director, is also here to help answer questions.

But I'll take the lead since I was the person that I discovered yesterday inadvertently spread confusion throughout the city of Chattanooga over the weekend.

And I appreciate the opportunity to come here today and try to clarify where things stand with CHA and these projects for both the council and the public at large.

But I want to first of all apologize for for any uh confusion that uh I have sort of wandered into, which happens to me from time to time.

So I'm sorry I brought you all with me.

Uh I've got just a couple slides to give a very high-level view of what has happened and why it happened and where we go from here.

Uh a lot of this uh the council has already heard.

Uh uh, as you know, uh the C CHA has what is called 1,287 units of what is called Faircloth Authority, and that comes from uh a law that was passed at the federal level in 1998 that caps all public housing across the country at the number of units that existed as of that date.

What it further provided, though, was that to the extent any units that existed on that date were later demolished and taken out of service, those units became what is called Faircloth Authority or availability for a housing authority.

Chattanooga for the size of our city, we have a very large faircloth availability of 1,287 units.

And just as a way of background, a big part of the reason we have that large uh availability pool is the demolition of some of our legacy older public housing sites uh in the first few years of this decade.

Uh Harriet Tubman Homes is the largest, and then also uh Maurice Poss homes.

Uh those two make up over 700 or approximately 700 units, and then with other demolitions in smaller areas across uh time, that's how we get to the total of 1,287.

So those are essentially a possible public subsidy that is available for the city of Chattanooga that's been sitting there uh since the early 2000s.

Uh and it is either allocated to Chattanooga or it goes somewhere else.

So, in essence, it's either use it or lose it.

If I go to the next slide.

So the first question I'm I'm sure you're asking is well, why haven't we used it?

Why has it been sitting there for this long?

And the reason is simple is while the 98 law created this availability, the law did not create any mechanism to utilize those in new construction.

So there was no way to take those vouchers and turn it into something that lenders can loan money against to actually build apartments.

Uh so it was there, it was nice in theory, uh, but there was no way to monetize that and turn it into actual housing.

Uh that changed uh in 2025.

Uh the HUD issued guidance for what it now calls the uh restore rebuild program.

And this program for the first time allowed public housing authorities to take their fair cloth authority, and then through a very convoluted series of transactions that I I'm not gonna put anybody to sleep with here today.

I'll be glad to follow up with anybody later, turn those in to financeable construction projects so that affordable housing could be built.

And just to give a sense of the scale of what 1,287 vouchers means, you know, that sounds uh you know that's a fairly abstract number, but what that translates into uh even at the most conservative valuations over a 20-year income stream for these projects uh for those vouchers, that's $340 million in subsidy.

That $340 million, which is available to Chattanooga, if we utilize it, can then be utilized to put into a capital stack and construct new units that will generate five to six hundred million in new construction, new jobs.

And when you combine that with other financing tools that are available, we think that we have a financeable ceiling of up to 2,000 units.

I don't think we'll ultimately construct that many because we're gonna have limitations on site sizes, things like that, but it's gonna be a sizable number, somewhere between 1,200 to 2,000 units.

Um what is all that for?

Well, it's for the citizens of Chattanooga.

We all hear about uh the problems we have with affordability.

Who does that mean?

Well, that means the nurse you see when you go to the doctor, the nurse's assistant who sees to you in the hospital, teachers and teachers' aides who teach your children, the police officers that answer calls, the firefighters.

Uh lots of those folks that provide the day-to-day work here in this city are being priced out of Hamilton County, and particularly the city limits.

And this is a program that uh allows those folks to enter into the market again and have good stable housing here in the city, and it's particularly exciting for say young families who need a starter home that may rent before they ever own.

Well, this gives them an option to do it close to where they work as opposed to two counties over.

We go to the next slide.

So, what did we do at CHA in response to that opportunity?

When this first came on the radar in 2025, uh we immediately started planning of how we could utilize this authority and how it could be deployed to benefit Chattanooga.

Uh late in 2025 and early 2026, we rolled out what is called our Faircloth Master Plan.

Originally, this plan was a very well-considered tenure rollout for projects uh incorporating these vouchers uh on a neighborhood by neighborhood section of the city by section of the city basis that would build in plenty of time to socialize this idea with all the stakeholders in the community.

And that is in the the terms of our original plan.

What's happened since then?

In early spring of this year, CHA started receiving credible reports, not official, but credible, we deem credible out of Washington that the administration in essence planned to cancel the Faircloth program for all projects that weren't already underway.

In essence, uh CHA was going to lose those vouchers and lose the $340 million net present value of investment that's possible for this city.

Based on just those rumors, we decided it was better to act than not act.

We went uh out with and noticed up essentially in an emergency request for proposals from developers for potential projects throughout the city where we could deploy these vouchers.

We went out with that in April.

We had uh a very robust response from the developer community uh and were able to award a number of projects that utilized our entire voucher availability.

Um that's where we were in late April, and at that point we decided we were going to continue on our process.

However, if we go to the next slide, on May 12th, uh HUD issued a memo that set hard hard guidelines deadlines for the entire faircloth program.

And this was sent out by HUD at an administrative level that essentially, and in anticipation of the Faircloth program being wound down next year if the current administration's budget is passed as written, which may or may not happen, but if that happens, HUD in essence put in a series of earlier hurdles that have to be met in order to preserve that faircloth availability.

But if that happens, HUD in essence put in a series of earlier hurdles that have to be met in order to preserve that faircloth availability.

The most um hard deadline of all that we have to face is by August 12th, we have in our planning August 10th, but August 12th of this year, we have to present as a city uh evidence to HUD that we have met one of two or three very narrow thresholds uh to enable us to continue to pursue these projects.

The most viable way for us to do this is through uh showing HUD that we have a viable LITEC project under consideration by THDA.

We've been in contact with THDA since May discussing this, and uh in essence, THDA has been very cooperative with us and very helpful.

And uh where we are now is THDA has said that it will issue the requisite conditional approval letters for our projects if we have a bond inducement uh and submit an application.

This is where the HEB meeting yesterday comes in.

Uh as you can imagine, all of these were pipeline projects that originally we thought we were gonna stage out over the next two or three years, but we're forced to start pulling together financing and plans on an accelerated basis.

And as part of that process, uh now we have to be able to show THDA that we have a bond inducement.

Uh we were able to have bond inducement hearings for some of these projects at the regularly scheduled HEB meeting, I believe on the 20th of July.

Uh then HEB at our request very very graciously uh scheduled a special meeting yesterday.

And what happened yesterday is we had the bond inducements for the balance of our projects.

And with those bond inducements now in hand, uh all of those projects will submit to THDA, receive a conditional approval letter, which then we can submit to HUD by the deadline and preserve these uh potential projects for the future.

If we do not do that, we will lose them and the 350 million in investment.

So what happened yesterday?

It was essentially an administrative box checking uh maneuver, uh not maneuver, but activity to preserve these vouchers uh so that we can continue on uh in the development process, which has literally I I want to say just started, but it's not really even started yet.

What didn't happen yesterday?

No development got approved.

Uh there were no bonds issued, no funds were committed, um, there's no construction authorized anywhere in the city, there's no zoning, land use, or any other step in this process that's been bypassed or waived.

If we go to the next slide.

So, what does that mean?

Well, that means we've essentially jumped through the federal hoops, uh, assuming we get everything in by August 10th, which knock on wood, we will, uh, to preserve this value for the city of Chattanooga.

And from this point forward, everything then will run its normal course.

Over the fall, there will be uh requests for rezonings and land use approvals, uh community and neighborhood input solicited and meetings, meetings with council members on any of these projects that uh that you want to meet about, uh site plan review uh by the uh regional planning uh uh commission, all the THDA and HUD approvals that normally come along with this, and all of the council and public discussions that we also normally do.

So, in essence, we have preserved our ability to move forward.

We haven't committed the city or anyone to any specific course of action, but we've allowed ourselves to try to keep this value for the city.

I'm glad to answer any other questions.

Uh yesterday, uh I'm I'm very familiar with all of them because we were doing them in our office here.

Yes, sir.

Uh and there were two that were withdrawn yesterday, correct?

That's correct.

The Northgate phase one and Northgate phase two were withdrawn.

So there were six that were approved at least preliminarily yesterday by the body.

That's correct.

And then there were, I believe.

Two more on the 22th.

Two earlier.

So we have eight approved, which covers and how many total units is that you have a of the total units that we have uh approved uh uh or are out there, we have one thousand.

Hang on, I wrote it on the back, I did the math.

Um it is uh we we we essentially as of right now 144 units of that 1,287 did not make it through to have a bond inducement.

So theoretically, those were not going to be able to go forward on at this time.

But again, uh that is only based on the current guidance.

Uh no statute has been revised.

So it's always possible in Hope Springs Eternal that we'll circle back around to those.

But our stance is we're not going to leave anything to chance that we don't have to.

So that's why we went through all of these steps to preserve everything for sure that we can now.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay.

And we do have several questions from council members.

So I'll start with uh councilman Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Joe, I think the biggest pothole that we hit yesterday was communication.

Uh, in the fact that we I say we, I mean, we didn't do a very good job of communicating at least to the council people so that we could communicate to the public.

Because I know I had uh many constituents calling me in a panic.

Yeah, uh, and you know, trust is something that we don't want to break in the community's eye, and and they felt like they were sort of being bypassed by a lot of this process.

So uh we need to do a better job of communication.

Less lesson learned on this, and again, I uh that's a mea culpa on my part.

Uh it just did not occur to me that an HEB docket would be something that would be press working.

Not so much and uh, but that's that's me.

I I now have uh I have a different view of that, and we'll make sure we communicate better.

Well and we're all there, but you know, experience is something that you get just after you've needed it.

So now you can now you have that experience.

Yes, sir.

Um are these bond inducements tied to a specific project location?

The bond inducements themselves for the moment are tied to a specific location.

However, the vouchers are uh portable that can be moved around, and THDA understands that these are preliminary sites that uh we're discussing, and we may or may not go for it at that site.

So just because the site, a particular site is not improved and um approved, doesn't mean that those bonds are lost, correct?

It it we have preserved an argument to keep them.

It's not certain what would happen in in in that case.

I mean, ideally everything matches up, everybody loves the projects and they move forward uh in whatever size everybody thinks is appropriate.

But that's the other thing to keep in mind.

All of these inducements are up to numbers, and so this isn't necessarily indicative of the eventual scale of any individual project.

Uh they may be smaller than what uh we went in for for the inducement, but we believe that those two things can be divided between THDA and the HUD requirements, but since we're constructing this airplane as we're flying it, I I can't guarantee that that's the case, but we're doing everything we can to put ourselves in a position so that essentially it's a no-brainer that we could do that.

Yeah.

Um and I wonder if and we're we call these affordable housing.

Uh I'm wondering if we could rephrase that term to maybe workforce housing, because many people tie affordable housing to low-income housing.

Sure.

And that conjures up a different scenario and picture in their mind.

But you know, what the you you had a screen earlier that showed, you know, teachers, firefighters, police officers.

I don't think anybody objects to having a firefighter or a police officer live in an apartment next to them.

But you know, I I'm just I'm just saying the perception is out there that no, I uh and we try to be sensitive to to neighbor concerns.

You know, all of these projects are uh mixed income projects, and so we may have folks at different levels of income.

Uh and it may go all the way.

We may have some people that need more subsidy down at say 30% of AMI, but then we'll have other folks at making almost 100% of AMI in the same project, uh not project but site, uh, so that then you average out that overall it looks like just any other middle class neighborhood in the city.

Yeah.

Okay, that's all I have, Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

Councilwoman Hill.

Thank you.

Um, I um I appreciate the information.

It's it's very helpful.

Yeah.

1,287 vouchers is a game changer for our city, and I I know we don't want to lose them.

So Betsy, thank you for leading an organization and thinking through that 10-year plan.

That that great plan that then you had to fast forward.

Um, I am concerned um about the 144 units, the 144 vouchers that we potentially took out of play yesterday.

Though as soon as I read the headline, I thought this is completely undermining the trust of the people who have been participating in the Northgate TIFF conversation.

So, you know, we we have a big project happening in District 3 that counts that Chairman Davis has been a real leader on and gaining trust there.

That said, we know that a hundred and I know anyway that 144 vouchers is incredibly valuable for our project.

So is there a way to bring another of the RF the emergency RFP projects out of the ice box and bring get it in front of HEB in the time allowed?

Yeah, I don't think that there's an avenue to do anything between now and and August 13th.

That said, we're very sensitive to the TIFF district and the affordability component that went in with that, and uh that's something that we're going to continue to work through.

We're going to continue to work that problem, and I believe there will be a solution out there at some point.

Okay.

Um that's all.

Thank you.

Okay.

Councilman Clerk.

Thank you, Chairman Davis.

Quick question.

Um I think, like Chairman Davis, we were all shocked that these sites even existed.

So what are the other sites?

Yeah, well, currently the the sites are spread throughout the city.

I I believe that uh with a number of you, we've generally referred to different zip codes as part of the plan when we've discussed this with you all in the past, and that wasn't uh being coy, it's just because that's all the detail that we had at that time.

The specific bond inducements that we have now do have uh physical addresses attached to them uh because we're required to do that.

And essentially those are spread through five or six different districts.

Uh and I'll be glad I can go through them now and give it a I would like for you to go through them now and have to read about it.

Or do you know what how the street addresses associated with what with what district?

Okay, definitely I mean we know our streets, but I don't know why you guys would not know that.

I'm pretty confident I know which districts go with it.

Okay.

We have 819 Runyon Drive, uh, which is in District One.

We have 113 Kinsey Drive, and again, before I go, some of these projects are very small, some of them are are larger.

The the actual spread of units is fairly even around the city, but one district may have more projects, but they're smaller in scale than some others.

But I'm sorry.

All right, so I was at 819.

The next one is 113 Kinsey Drive, that's in District 4.

7453 East Brainerd Road that is in District 4.

Um, then there is uh what I call old Lee Highway, and it is eight thousand uh eight zero two two.

There's a number of street addresses that go with this.

This is a church-owned property, uh, and that is in uh district six.

Uh-huh.

We have 7997 Shallerford Road, which is in the excuse me, District 4.

We have um 1123 Mountain Creek Road, which is in District 1.

Um we have 7610 Standard for Gap, which is in District 4.

Uh we have 5026 Old Godsea Lane, which is in District 3.

Uh, and then we have 5211, uh Highway 58, which is in District 5.

Is that again?

District 5.

The last the address.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That is 5211 Highway 58.

Okay, of course, we'd like that list.

Um my question.

So there's an August 12th deadline by HUD.

Do they require these preliminary sites to be decided upon with the bonds attached to them by August?

I think y'all's was your deadline was August 10th, but the actual HUD deadline is August 12th.

What we have been informed by HUD, uh, and I will step back a second.

The staff folks that we're working with at the federal level have been very cooperative and uh and helpful.

Uh we are all dealing with a page and a half uh guidance that was fairly short on detail.

And so HUD folks at the staff level are filling it in.

Uh again, a lot of this is an airplane in the air that we're still hammering on.

Um what we have been told as of today is that after August 10th, whatever we have submitted, there is the ability to change within that zip code, but not necessarily outside that zip code.

So we have been told that there will be some geographic flexibility after that point.

Um, but again, that's that's just oral advice at the moment.

There's no there is no HUD guidance on this other than discussions that I've had with HUD officials.

So the answer is no.

Answer is unknown.

Uh uh they've we're they strongly believe that they're uh I mean I've been told that we can move around within a zip code, but I plan to do that.

There's no written guidance.

I've I've written grants for HUD.

Yes, as you know, it's urban development.

Right.

And if there's no written guidance on it, then we know that it's a no.

So if they're if they're asking you for the preliminary sites to be approved and to go through the community neighborhood input process by August 12th.

They will not have to go through the community input process by August 12th.

Uh HUD understands that the sites when I say HUD understands, I'm gonna let me be careful.

These are discussions that I've had with the restore rebuild department at HUD and other ones.

I've talked to two or three different, as you know, HUD tends to be siloed off in their their different departments.

I've talked to two or three different departments that touch on this.

The consistent answer that I've been given is what we're telling you as the minimum uh uh to that we will need in order to preserve these vouchers, that's all you need to provide at this time, and then we will work through the process after August 12th.

Uh, do I have that in in writing?

No, but um I'm well I have no choice but but to rely on that for now, and it's so far so good.

Well, you know, documentation beats conversation, you're an attorney.

There's documents.

Okay.

I know.

I'm just I'm so the question is so we're not caught with our pants down on this again.

Is that if these are the sites, right?

You didn't know about your site.

I didn't know about this D5 site.

What do we tell our community that if these sites are submitted as preliminary sites to HUD and but we're not sure if there's officially in writing, if it's can be moved around and we get stuck with these sites without the public.

I think I understand your I understand your question now.

I it is our current intent to utilize these sites uh uh uh as I've listed, uh, but that's still subject to council approval, public review, public input.

And so I guess I was skipping a step that if after that process, uh the answer came back from the community and the council or regional planning.

No, you can't put a uh a development here, but we might let you put one two miles down the road.

I believe we will have that flexibility.

But currently that these are the sites that we intend to try to proceed with.

August 12th is in two weeks.

So, you know, I guess my curiosity the filings are already in process with THDA, THDA is keenly aware of the August 12th deadline.

Uh we've had multiple discussions with Ralph Perry uh and his folks over there.

So I I would I would say this is something that's been discussed around the clock for the last few months by the the folks that have to try to make something work.

Except with the city council, except with the city council, and again, that's that's that's on me.

Okay, all right, Mr.

Chair, you'll bet.

Okay.

Councilman Harvey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um, I have several questions.

Um trying to wrap my head around all this.

Uh yeah, there's a lot in my district.

I think you listed three addresses, uh four addresses.

Uh first question is are all of these that are in my district subject to rezoning.

I can't answer that.

You know, again, that's how early we are in this this process.

I I cannot answer that question.

I I would imagine at least one of them will be.

I believe of the four, two are not.

They've already been zoned for the type of project that is going in there.

And in fact, I mean they that it's already been approved for exactly what is going to go in there.

Uh it's just the difference that we're gonna have workforce housing available there that wouldn't have been there before.

Sure.

But from a build perspective, it's not different.

Okay.

The other two sites, I don't know the answer of whether I I believe the answer is more than likely yes.

What are the two that have already been approved?

Is that is it Kinsey?

Is Kenzie one of those?

Kensington and and Brainerd Row.

East Brainerd Road.

Yeah, which are you you know, they're probably a couple miles apart as you're driving down gun, uh, excuse me, is your growing driving down East Brainerd Road and you pass uh the gun barrel exit about a mile past that.

You on the left, there's a vacant lot.

That is Brainerd Row, and then you go another couple miles down to Kinsey, which is next to the Walmart, which was the site of the old farmstead, that's the Ken the Kensington site.

Yes, okay.

Yeah, well, and so for the other two, my point being I especially the one on Shallford goes completely against Plan Chattanooga, which we will be voting at uh on eventually.

Um so I have certain hesitations there.

Um I would encourage you all, the developer, whoever it is, to take a look at Plan Chattanooga and make sure it's in it's compatible.

Um otherwise uh it's it's not gonna work.

Um how many how many units are in district four?

Do you know?

I would say the total well again, I can't say with certainty what the the total unit count will be uh bas because it's all gonna be subject to construction, but I would say the total unit count spread over all of the developments will be somewhere between three and four hundred units uh in that district spread around over different sites.

No uh okay.

You listen uh back to uh Chairman or Chairman Councilman Henderson was asking earlier, I thought it was an interesting question.

I had also listed down you had some positions that uh jobs that were listed, uh nurses, aides, teachers, police and fire.

I mean, shoot, I'm a nurse myself.

Um are these developments only um to serve those folks?

Is that a requirement that they must hold one of these positions, or is it open to more it it's it's open to anyone who meets the the the in spreads.

Okay that's right okay.

Um what happens, and I this is probably just another way to ask what Councilman Clark was asking, but what happens if you get down the road and um it's denied in the zoning process.

Well, uh that that will be a problem for us, and we'll just have to address that at that time.

We will do our best to shift those vouchers to another site, but as I said, there's no guarantee that we can do that.

Uh again, though, uh this is a current interpretive guideline that was very clearly hastily written on May 12th.

Uh it's enforced now.

It may not be in force two years from now.

But we just have to go on what we have now.

Sure.

And so I'm trying to preserve everything that I can given the law as written today.

Okay.

Um I assume all these meet the current zoning code.

Yes.

Okay.

These these are the these properties are going to be very similar in style to uh and quality to say the the Shallerford Point uh project, uh the Bluestone Terrace, what we're doing on the west side.

That that when you think of what we're building, that is what it's it's going to look something like that.

Sure.

Let me just say I'm I'm not opposed to uh the style of affordable housing.

I think it's something we need.

Uh like I said, but I'm a nurse and uh my wife's a nurse.

We that that was uh and is our career.

Um I just have uh you know a problem again with the communication, and then um the placement on some of these just does not uh is not compatible with uh with our neighborhoods, and so I I would appreciate if that was taken into consideration.

Everything that you're saying is is fair play, and I will only say this in defense.

Because of the very compressed schedule that Washington forced on us, uh we have had to move at a very accelerated pace just to get to where we are today.

And so, in essence, we were taking sites that we could find that were available in that one month window that we had to find a site.

We were not, we didn't have the luxury of going around and and cherry picking sites.

Sure.

Would raise uh the level of interest that it did.

But I in fact I left you a voicemail earlier today.

I'm happy to talk with all of you at any time.

Um I'm always available.

And uh because as I've learned some stuff from you guys today that I'm gonna go back and think about.

Uh but we we haven't been able to really get into that process the way we normally do, just because we're just trying to keep this alive.

Totally.

Yeah, I I completely can appreciate that and the the chaos that you're having to deal with with the HUD process.

Uh it I'm I can only imagine.

Um I mean, just for time's sake, and since time is uh something that is important.

I mean, I'd encourage you not to pursue the Shallowford Road.

Uh I mean I'm I don't know if this is the uh forum for that, but um I would encourage you not to uh find another place because that one's not just not gonna work, and I don't want you to waste any time.

Um so that's my two my two cents.

Um I think that's all the questions I have right now.

Thank you.

Okay.

Oh, sure.

Uh so what happens if if you're receiving this public input that we don't that we have issue with these sites before August 12th, what happens?

I don't know that there's anything that we can course correct between now and August 12th, because uh the steps to get here has involved a lot of people at the state, federal, and private uh industry working pretty hard.

But it's something then that we know how to plan for in the coming months.

And for example, uh the the concern about the Challaford Road site, um, then that's something that we we'll we'll need to go back and take a look at and see if there's something that we can work through.

But the first one now on August 12.

Well, I don't think that we can do anything, but realistically, I don't think I can tell you that I'm gonna solve that problem between now and August 12th.

I mean, if I can, I will, but will the vouchers be lost?

What we are going to do as of all just so in the interest of transparency, because that's a fantastic point.

We're gonna go ahead and submit this address to THDA and get the inducement and then preserve those vouchers at THDA and excuse me at the HUD level, with the understanding that I have from HUD that there's some flexibility on location after we get past August 12th.

But I that's that is my internal monologue of how I'm gonna try to address it.

I think that's a great idea, but would you be able to submit that in writing to HUD to get that type of assurance that you would have that flexibility because if not, you're just submitting oral argument that doesn't mean anything.

I understand.

Uh and I guess the best way to put it is we're getting every written commitment that folks are comfortable giving us, and we're continually talking with them, and it's evolving over time, and we're getting more assurances in writing over time.

Okay.

Not the first time we've done this.

So we we're just working.

That's why I'm shocked, because this is not the first time you guys have gone through the city.

Well, it's it's the first time we've had um it's the first time that we've been given essentially a two-month deadline to complete what is a normally a two to three year process.

Because what this does, it almost creates the perception that you guys have just created public housing scatter sites in our districts, and we haven't had the opportunity to inform people, then what that happens, i.e.

what happened in Hickson, everybody's like, oh, what is it?

What is it?

So between now and August 12th, like I'll now have to, because it's in public record, have to explain to my district what's happening on Highway 58.

And I don't know, and neither do you apparently.

I do know, and I'll be glad to set down the case.

Councilman, I will sit down with you for as long as you want to sit down and I'll go through the whole project.

I'll bring the developer in.

That works.

Because I I think you guys are bigger problem than you.

It's our apologies.

We're doing the best we can in the circumstances we were dealt.

Right.

And there's a closer like principal Highway 58, pardon me finish.

On highway 58, I would be interested in knowing if the site development plan included multifamily.

Or if it did go against our single family plans.

I thank you for your apologies.

But what I'm interested in is what the course of action is for course.

I would that's why I'm asking these questions.

What can we do if between now and August 12th, if we'll be stuck with without with some oral or verbal agreement that we cannot change these sites around?

We will do our best, and I commit to you, I will do my best to bring it up.

Well, you lose these accounts, and it'll be on you to be on the housing authority.

It is on us, and we're doing the best we can, and I commit to you, I'll do everything I can.

We would have already lost these if the housing authority hadn't taken the steps that it did.

I don't want to councilwoman Hill.

Thank you.

Um in hearing this conversation about what might happen between now and August 12th.

Um, I acknowledge that you all have taken what was originally a 10-year plan and collapsed it into almost one month, right?

Um to do uh I mean, granted, there's there's time to build, but um you what I am hearing, and and I believe you all to be honest uh players, um, because you have been good partners, um, at least for me, um, is that um the rules were that you could never until 2025 take the actual street value of a voucher and use it to get financing on a project.

That's correct.

So uh we actually we heard rumors that the change was coming, and we started working on it in anticipation of the change.

But so since 1999, we've had this little bank of vouchers that's been growing, and yet no way, no real way to finance a project to build something new.

You can't just dink a dink your nose and bring a 35 unit small apartment building out of the ground.

Somebody's gotta say this is a worthy business objective, I can finance it.

So that's what I'm hearing is that as of 2025, that became a conversation that you could have with bankers, and then we layer it upon new HUD guidelines of doing mixed income housing and bringing it into a capital stack, which takes a $300 million federal um uh federal becomes an incentive in some ways, but a federal um commitment toward housing and could leverage it for our community into a $600 million commitment.

That's a heck of a thing in my book when I think about the kind of housing that our city needs.

And I did some quick back of the napkin math, just taking $300 million in vouchers and dividing it by 1287.

And my quick math is that every voucher in terms of financing is worth 233,100.

So the 144 that we sat aside for for that that were the controversial addresses due to the cuckoo ness of this whole chaotic admin federal administration.

Um we lost $33,566,433 in affordable housing subsidy by putting those projects to the side, potentially now that's August that we're gonna do.

13 could roll around and somebody could roll over and be like, you know what?

I think I will help pay for some doing the thing that I said I would do in 1999.

Who knows?

But in my book, like in the conversation between about what might need to change if a given address isn't the right address.

I say I would encourage my council members to say, all right, right now I know that the housing authority is an up and up player.

They're not trying to mess over anybody, they're just trying to make sure that we can, in the space of this insane month-long schedule, preserve 300 million dollars in federal subsidy for affordable housing, and let's let them do that, and then on August 13th, start having the conversations about how you sharpen your pencil and make sure the projects are the right projects in the right place.

You know, we don't know if one of these projects is a 35 unit or a 12 unit or a hundred unit.

You know, I mean, there's so much to be known.

And so um I'm sure y'all have lost a lot of sleep over this.

Um, and I will do whatever I can to help you get things over the finish line.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Okay.

Council, are there any other questions for for Joe?

Okay.

Well, thank you very much again for being here.

We appreciate it.

Certainly, and again, I'll reiterate I intend to talk to everybody on the council about these different projects.

Uh now that uh we as long as we can just clear the next hurdle so that we have a project to talk about.

Sure.

Okay.

All right, council.

Can I get a motion on the minutes from our last meeting?

Please move.

All right.

Minutes will stand as published.

Look with me if you will at this week's agenda.

There are no ordinances of any kind on this week's agenda.

Um councilwoman Dartman, you're recognized.

Uh thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

I was uh I have you moved into resolutions.

I do want to respect where you are.

Okay.

Well, yeah, I mean, we're going there just by virtue of not having any ordinances.

Thank goodness for that.

Thank you.

Uh, but um, I did not address this last week, but I did want to go ahead and bring in my comments again for this exact resolution that we talked about in strategic planning.

I had several concerns about it uh when we talked about in strategic planning, was unaware that it was going to come to uh an agenda um, you know, we talked about a strategic planning with no conclusion, and then it came to our council agenda.

And you're talking about 9A at the bottom of the 19th century.

So sorry.

Just make sure we're on the same.

That's right, we are, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

9A, um, a resolution to repeal uh resolution.

So I did talk to um our uh great attorney earlier today regarding this uh and wanted to get some clarity about how this is presented to us.

I know last week it said a resolution to reform, and this week it's a resolution to repeal.

In addition, the the information that was on last week, it's not the information that was on today.

So could you give them some clarity about the open meetings act uh and how this process should play out, especially coming from our leadership?

All right, yes, ma'am.

Uh the initial resolution that we had was uh adopting it had been on the agenda of the week before here as a resolution adopting a city council reform proposal committee structure and legislative process and substantially the form attached.

There was some confusion, at least in our office here regarding uh the form of what that document would be.

Uh, we learned uh, I believe yesterday that there was a uh, I guess a resolution uh that wanted to be uh, I guess amended instead of that.

And that uh resolution to repeal resolution 32800 that was adopted back in uh February of this year and adopting a new rules of operation for the city council was uh was involved.

And because of that, uh we um uh provided that to y'all on the agenda uh here uh for for today.

Uh guess the question in our mind here is that the uh provisions of your current procedures require at least a time period of at least one week before you can put it on the agenda.

That's in the current provisions here uh under B 1A, saying that all proposed ordinances and resolutions must be submitted no later than 11 30 a.m.

on the Tuesday before two weeks prior to the city council meeting.

For some reason, there's been a screw up in our office as to the version of that on that is on the code, and because of that, we would submit that it's not ripe for hearing this evening, probably should be done next week.

Okay, all right, thank you so much.

Um I feel I appreciate that.

Uh in addition to that, I did want to reiterate my points from a few weeks ago.

Like I said, we talked about in strategic planning.

There's been no other discussion, and then it appeared on our agenda, which seems um I keep my comments to myself.

So the first one is uh, and I'm gonna read in not in brief, I'm gonna read the whole thing of what I written out regarding this because I still have the same issues.

Uh, and then I believe in the new version, it has additional accountability.

I do want to note that each council member is elected by 50% plus one.

That means we all have equal authority.

The chair is in place to keep the meetings in order and to do the things that we need to do.

But we all nobody, Chairman Davis is not my boss, Vice Chair Elliot, no other council person on here is anybody's boss because regardless of if you ran unopposed, like myself and councilwoman Hill was so lucky to do, or you had three or four opponents like some other people up here.

Either way, 50% plus one is how you get elected, and that makes all of us equal, not um hierarchical.

And I'm sorry, Councilman Elliott, this is so boring to you that you're yawning, but I did want to note that um colleagues, as I did before, I want to express serious concerns regarding the proposed governance reforms.

And I asked for your thoughtful consideration before we take any action.

While I appreciate efforts to improve our operations, this proposal has four fundamental flaws.

It creates workload disparities, mandates, unnecessary, uh bureaucracy structurally excludes members from leadership and shifts the burden of this divisive consequences onto others.

A couple of things in there noted.

Um, for instance, uh the committees.

If you're on a committee, like there are six committees, mind you, if we go back to what I previously mentioned, there are nine committee members.

Our chair never has a committee because he doesn't, you know, they're they're busy.

Chair is busy.

Um, but there are eight other members of this council that should be serving in leadership roles.

Uh, when each council member has a committee, if we have something in our committee that we want to address, then we all address it together and decide what we're going to do.

In this format that is being proposed, if the council members there don't get a vote after I think two or three members, there the chair of the committee and maybe two or three members.

And if you're any of the rest of us, nobody else gets the vote, which is wrong.

That is injust to every single one of our districts.

So if you're not a council person that's on that committee or a member of that committee, your you're pretty much your 20,000 people or so you represent, don't have a voice in that decision.

And as a Chattanoogan, I am born and raised, and I'm passionate about this because when I hit see an injustice and I see this stuff creeping up through council, I have to say something.

And as a born and raised Chattanoogan, as a part of a minority class, a couple of minority classes as a black woman, as African American as a woman, when I see things like this, get ready to try to take away our voices.

That's that's that doesn't that doesn't sit well with me.

So my first issue, the workload.

Traditionally, the vice chair has served as the legislative chair, carrying the significant responsibility of council governance.

Uh, but this right here, this reform, it is difficult to justify this kind of reform.

This proposal effectively strips those duties from the vice chair and redistributes them to the newly created government operations committee.

And it's just difficult to justify a council person, a vice chair bringing a reform that takes away their duties.

Uh, and is brought forward by the current vice chair that actively reduces the vice chair's responsibilities while increasing the burden on the rest of this council.

Again, we were all elected with 50% plus one.

We lived in our district over a year, and I believe it's 21 and up to be a council member.

Is it 21 and up?

Those are the three primary criteria.

And we all should share the burden of council, uh, not try to remove our burden and give it to other council members.

That's that that is wrong.

Second, the proposal mandates that committees meet at least once every two months, regardless of whether there's actual business to conduct.

As the chair of community development, there's a lot of restructuring and a lot of redevelopment, a lot of uh development going on.

They're doing a phenomenal job, but I wouldn't dare bring them up here now because we're not ready to meet yet.

Are we scheduling a meeting for September?

Absolutely.

But I wouldn't bring them now, and this will force a committee meeting that has nothing.

Well, we have something to report, but forcing a committee meeting unnecessarily, taking away their time and my time to have a meeting because the calendar said so.

Committee chairs already have the authority to convene when necessary.

Um, forcing meetings simply to satisfy an arbitrary procedural requirement demonstrates a lack of operational understanding.

Good governance is measured by tangible outcomes and oversight, not by checking the box on the calendar.

Just because this is not the administration.

We are not Mayor Kelly in his office.

We are the city council for Chattanooga.

We are the city council for Chattanooga, Tennessee.

We don't have that type of operational, we don't we don't have to do that.

We meet if we're following what the charter says and we're doing what the charter says, the committees will work the way they need to work.

Um the third issue and most concerning is the inherent exclusion in this new structure.

I mentioned this before by reducing nine committees to six and excluding the chair and vice chair, which chair is fine.

We all understand and we know that uh as a former chair myself, uh, but I know as vice chair, it is not as strenuous.

It's just like being everybody else.

Um, and excluding the chair and vice chair from chairing them, we are left with only six leadership positions available for the remaining seven council members.

As a result, at least one elected member member will be systematically excluded from a leadership role.

Furthermore, which then puts the burden back on everybody else to carry their load while they're sitting back not doing anything.

Furthermore, the specific elimination and absorption of the affordable housing and community development committees, I mentioned this before, that I currently chair diminishes the voices of district seven residents and creates, I leave that what it is, that diminishes the voices of district seven residents, which is why I'm saying what I'm saying, because I come in with 20,000 plus people behind me.

It's not just me.

And believe me, if this goes forward, every council member is going to hear from from this district and your district should be concerned too, because what if somebody, you know, I'm gonna leave it right there too.

Because what if somebody, you know, I'm gonna leave it right there too.

Fourth, there is a distinct lack of accountability in how this will be implemented.

The sponsor of this proposal is creating a structure that guarantees exclusion, yet shifts the difficult and divisive task of actually making those exclusionary committee assignments onto the current chair.

Again, taking away the workload for themselves, then giving the decision to our current chair who has already made committee, a committee appointments.

One must ask why create a proposal that is inherently exclusionary, and why should this council support a plan that asks other members to do more while asking the vice chair to do less?

Chattanooga residents did not elect us to create a hierarchy among council members.

Again, this is not the administration.

We don't have the chair of council is not our boss.

We every single member up here got elected by 50% plus one, 21 years or older, some of us are older, and lived in your district for over a year.

That's how we got into these seats.

So nobody here is nobody's boss.

Um, so one must ask again, why create a proposal that's inherently exclusionary and why should this council support a plan that asks other members to do more while asking the vice chair to do less?

That is a problem.

I don't know about you all, but I'm working very hard in my district.

And then to come in to a council that says, well, either I am not in a leadership role or this other the vice chair is just shifts it off to somebody else.

That's just that's not right.

Chattanooga residents did not elect us to create a hierarchy among council members.

They elected nine representatives to bring nine equal perspectives to the table.

That's why we are a body.

Small governance changes often have large consequences, and centralizing authority in the hands of a few is a slippery slope that risks sewing division.

Instead of adopting this device, this device of structure, and I recommended this before, and I believe our chair uh had has put that on strategic planning for August 18th to talk about our priorities, I believe.

Um I propose an alternative.

First of all, we know if anything happens, it's got to be moved the next week anyway.

But let us establish a let us establish legislative priorities, which we are going to do through our strategic planning process through the leadership of our chair on August the 18th, and align our committees and resources around those shared goals.

So if we know we want to see X in certain, you know, we want to see more activities in our community centers, or we want to see um, you know, keep the rating for the the fire department.

We know we want those things, and let's add that to the oversight that we do.

We should let purpose, not calendars, drive our meetings and focus our focus on strengthening coordination between the legislative and executive branches.

Leadership should be about empowering colleagues and building consensus, not creating winners and losers.

For this reason, I strongly urge this council to reject this proposal.

And it's sad that it's come up again, and it's sad that we have to address this again because it is exclusionary, it is shifting workload, and it's is it's not about titles, is not because whether I'm on this council or not, I'm still Rakita Dotley.

It makes no difference to me.

I'm gonna continue to do the work like I was doing before I got on city council, and when I'm done with this, I continue to do the work I've been doing.

So it's not about that, but it is about when I see an injustice taking place.

Whatever this council decides is what y'all decide.

I'm just one vote.

But do know that my constituents will hear about this, they will know this because at the end of the day, this is I represent their voices, not just Rakita's voice, it is the voice of the 20 plus thousand people that I represent in District 7.

And when they're when the person they elect's voice is being diminished or minimized, or if any of y'all, it ain't even just me, if anybody's voice up here is diminished or minimize.

I got a problem with it, and I'm gonna speak up on it every time because this is very wrong, especially coming from the vice chair who is moving responsibility to other people, diminishing voices, and in essence, creating a hierarchy or chart among council members when no.

The same my yes, her yes, your yes, all equals the same thing.

And I my nobody's voice should be taken.

I don't care who it is, and I will stand 10 toes down on it every time.

So that is what I have to say before I start saying what's not in this speech.

So thank you so much, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I had talked to Phil earlier today regarding this issue, and there was a clerical error on exactly what was supposed to be posted.

And so, with that, I do intend on uh motioning to the furthest for a week.

I want to give some background as to the purpose about this piece here.

You know, this is an idea I had coming into council, right?

For no other reason to say, how can we help build out systems to make this council more productive, more effective to make sure this city is working for us, right?

While also acknowledging that this is a part-time council, right?

And while it is incredibly important that we have a good relationship with our executive branch, sometimes balls get dropped, right?

And I had seen coming in that you know, we hadn't really utilized these committee structures too often, or mostly when there was pressing legislation that came up.

And I saw it as an opportunity to create bandwidth, right?

Um how it stands now, all nine council people serve on each committee as it stands.

That's not really a committee, that's a council as a whole talking about each item, right?

And while I have numerous projects that focus on my district, I have items as well that I would love to pursue that may not just impact the folks of District 9.

And I have many colleagues that may share that.

So what does it look like to increase capacity for all of us?

Knowing that this is a part-time job, many of us have other responsibilities.

If it's homelessness, for example, right?

We've been trying to make some headway on that, for example.

What does it look like to assign a committee to work on that or what we discussed early on as a working group?

So you have a team of council people that can spearhead really find some direction on that and bring that before the council as a whole.

Um, but how do you also set up a structure so if even if I'm not on that committee, I can still participate.

And that's what this proposal does.

It doesn't necessarily try to strip any one council person's voice, because you know, we're all elected.

All nine of us represent approximately 20 something thousand folks, and that is our that is our vote, right?

And ultimately, anything that needs to be decided by this body ultimately comes to any business meeting, and all nine of us have an opportunity to cast a vote up and down for every single item.

The thought was how do you expand the capacity of working groups and making sure if council people want to lean in, they can do that.

But if it's not something that is on their priority list, they they don't have to necessarily be obligated to go as a committee, right?

You know, there may be some council people that want to work on what noise ordinances, right?

And a committee may decide to take that as a as a working group and tackle that.

So they didn't they may not necessarily look to lean in on that conversation.

All this essentially does in essence too, it helps us realign buckets for the work of government.

Um what we have done quite often in the past is adjust our committees to fit the departments that the mayor and administration may set up, right?

And those change.

Um at one point the mayor had uh department of innovation delivery and performance, and we had a department of education and innovation.

Well no, innovation delivery performance doesn't exist anymore.

But for a while, we had that on our committee structure.

So, how do you set up buckets that fit the functions of government so there can be a little bit more consistency amongst this council so they understand what working buckets we can tackle?

But as the administration as its prerogative may reorganize and everything else, that those items can still be captured.

You know, I have a strong philosophy as legislators, uh, this this conversation's come up quite a bit as legislators.

If if I vote to approve something, whether that be a budget, uh uh an expense, uh policy, I have a responsibility to make sure that that is been carried out as if it was passed.

And that level of oversight is something that you see at every single legislative body in this country, from Congress to state legislatures to other municipalities, you know, that's it.

But it's a fine line.

We walk a very fine line between being legislators and operations.

I it is not my place to tell public works how to do their job.

It is not my place to tell parks how to make sure we have great parks for our community.

But as District 9 casts a vote for budgetary items, how do we make sure that those monies are being spent for they're supposed to, right?

How do we make sure that policies are being executed as we voted on them, right?

That's that's in our oversight ability.

And so, you know, I don't want anybody to think this is something that has been a personal attack against anybody because that's not it.

And you know, there's been a lot of um difficult dynamics these last couple weeks on this council, and the tent of this is not to deepen that any further.

Um the intent is to simply help create systems to make sure that we can continue to be better for all of our people, right?

I look forward to the day when we're able to get back to a closer camaraderie amongst all of us.

Um I don't want any of my colleagues to think it's attack because that that is not it.

You know, I I tossed this idea out actually before I even got elected.

I think Councilwoman Hill and I, before we I even took office before I got inaugurated, we had lunch and I had tossed this idea, and I think she said, Well, you should probably wait a little bit, fill it out to see how it works, you get firsthand experience, and then you pursue it.

And you know, I did that.

I've been in here since April of 25, and you know, it is all about how do we make sure these we as colleagues work better for Chattanooga.

We also provide oversight that is necessary, right?

Uh, I had to have difficult conversations today with the administration.

I appreciate them being open enough to lean in about projects that our district got in past budget cycles.

And that in itself is oversight.

I'm not telling them how to do it, and you know, they were incredibly gracious, probably more gracious than I deserve sometimes.

And I know many of them, all of folks that work for the city wake up every single day to say, how do we show up for our people?

And I have no doubt that all nine of us as well wake up every single day and say, How do we show up for Chattanooga?

And sometimes we fall short, sometimes we don't always follow through on things, and that's okay.

But that is the beauty of how this democracy works, provides checks and balances.

We can lean in, have difficult conversations today, like I had with Jay, Mandy, um, Darren, and Kim, and say, hey, I need I need your help over here.

Because I feel like we're falling short.

And then being open and saying, Councilman, let's figure out how we do better, right?

And that's what it's about.

And this is what the intent of these conversations about, and to be able to increase capacity of us being legislators.

You know, this does not stop anybody from pushing up any legislation.

I hope this encourages it.

But I remember we had a uh conversation, and I'll and I'll wrap up here soon.

We had a conversation not too long ago about Carta and some of their parking uh reforms they were looking to do.

That would have been a great conversation to peel that off to a committee to really dive into that, say, does this work for Chattanooga?

What needs to be tweaked?

How can this be approved?

And then that eventually come to the floor.

But we saw when it got presented to us, it wasn't completely baked out, or there were some questions that had some uh loose ends that need to be tied up.

That's all we're looking to do is to have fruitful conversations on the things that are brought to this body because they have true consequences.

And if we don't get it right, they can go left really quickly, right?

Like I have questions today about something uh on the agenda involving downtown storefront dollars.

And you know, those are conversations I'm looking to have with River City, economic development about how do we make our work impact all of Chattanooga, right?

And help close the gaps around our knowledge, and sometimes uh it takes a little bit more than all nine of us being here, but also it's about transparency as well.

When you can have these conversations on these dioceses where they're live streamed and you can have those fruitful conversations and increase the capacity of our colleagues, where if you want to join every single committee, that's bled in the rules, right?

Every council person can participate in every single committee if they want to.

But if they don't want to, if they're passionate about public works, parks or community development, that can be your focus.

But if you really want to lean in with councilwoman Burrus, who's been doing a great job with planning and get to know more about that, you have an opportunity to do so.

But also understanding that we as a council, um we get stretched thin sometimes, but that doesn't mean the work should stop.

How do we maximize that work and increase efficiency?

And that's all it is.

That that's all this work is, and that's all, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilman Burrs.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I appreciate your comments.

I think that um the comments that have gone back and forth, at least the information that I shared with all of the council and that you reviewed, it seems like has provided the opportunity to step back and think about how we look at this a little bit differently.

And it I think it would have been nice if the original approach had happened a little bit differently, but then we live we live and learn.

You know, we don't always have the opportunity to talk things out like we'd like to, you know, when we're in these forums, being able to sit around a table like when we do in strategic planning and being able to hash things out.

It'd be nice to get to a situation where we can do that even with the public watching where someone can bring an idea and talk about it more openly and say what do you all think without feeling like someone's being threatened.

But I do want to share some comments that I had some or reinforce some of the things that that both of my colleagues have said, and also make some recommendations.

I know this is going to go to the agenda next week, but I'd like to go ahead why the topic's hot because I think it gives us all something to think about for the next week to decide where we're gonna go there from there.

I do want to ask one point of procedure, Mr.

Attorney, and this might have been part of the the typo or the error where on our agenda it says added with permission of the vice chairman, a vice chairman Elliott.

And it's my understanding that that can't happen, correct?

So that is is that one of the typos?

Well, that is that is a typo, but the chair did actually send an email saying the resolution could be added here.

Gotcha.

Okay, because I know that's happened, that's popped up twice now on our agenda where something was written as added with permission of the vice chair, but according to our rules, we can't do that.

Right.

So I just wanted to verify that procedure.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Um, as I said, uh, Vice Chair Elliott, I do support improving the committee work, and I like you want to help make sure that the work is has real weight and makes a difference.

I mean, that's why I ran for office, you know, for this seat, because I wanted to do those things, whether it's out in my district or up here and working alongside the eight of you.

And as I mentioned, I'd hope that the questions and comments I'd previously shared would provide some clarity regarding the proposal.

And you have provided a little more clarity, and I think just having this additional conversation has helped, but it really led to more questions about whether we're addressing the right problem.

And as I've thought about this for several weeks now and trying to figure that out, I I went back to your executive summary that stated the goals of this proposal, and I'm this is directly from the summary, is are to make work more substantive, more visible to the public, and more manageable for members serving in a part-time capacity, which I think are worthwhile goals, and I believe they can be accomplished without fundamentally restructuring the committee structure or the committee system, which I I suggested.

I made some suggestions, which I hope all of you had a chance to, I shared it.

It was shared with all of you all from through the clerk.

Um I think the recommendations that I made would strengthen our committee process while ensuring that every district continues to have a voice, as several of us have expressed, the workload remains balanced, which has been also an issue among all council members, and our focus stays on our legislative responsibilities.

My first question is this if committee work is not considered substantive today, is the problem really the committee structure or how we manage and support the work of our committees.

So that's where I kind of find are we really trying to do too much to accomplish what your goals have said we want to accomplish.

So rather than reorganizing the committees, why not establish clear expectations for committee leadership?

For example, each committee chair could be asked to submit a work plan at the beginning of the term that includes priorities, anticipated legislation, educational topics, and a proposed meeting schedule.

Several of us have shared the fact that all committees don't necessarily need to meet as often, or maybe it's more seasonal, depending on what the topic is.

Um the council chair could then provide regular oversight by reviewing progress and following up with the committee chairs throughout the year, simply establishing expectations and ensuring accountability, I think would go a long way toward improving committee effectiveness if that's the true goal.

Um, during last week's strategic planning meeting, I'd had the opportunity to go back and watch, and there was some discussion about new member orientation.

That conversation really resonated with me because when I first took this seat, I didn't know what I didn't know.

I mean, how many of us were in that seat?

You think you know what you what you know, but you don't always.

So looking back in regards to the committee structure, I believe a structured orientation and clearly defined expectations for committee chairs would have been more valuable than changing the committee structure itself.

Um, when I was asked to chair the planning and zoning committee, I wasn't handed a guidebook or a roadmap.

I had to create one for myself.

I sought advice from previous committee chairs, built relationships with departments connected to planning and zoning, listened carefully to concerns raised by fellow council members, identified potential ordinance changes, and looked for opportunities to educate both council and public.

That experience taught me that successful committees are driven by engaged leadership, clear expectations and accountability, not simply how committees are organized on paper.

Before we undertake a significant restructuring, I'd like for us to consider, and I believe we should first strengthen those fundamental elements.

I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You know, I I think, you know, I have not received feedback pro or con to my approach leading the the planning and zoning committee and to know that this structure was not substituent, nor do I recall being audited.

So going forward, I'm interested in hearing about who conducted the audit referred to in the executive summary.

And I think we should further discuss that.

I continue to have concerns that this proposal, um, and I shared share uh the sentiment with councilwoman Dotley that it unnecessarily limits both district representation and meaningful partners' participation in the committee process.

I'm also concerned about the emphasis on expanding committee oversight when I still do not have a clear understanding of what that oversight would entail.

As the proposal is currently written, it appears to blur the line between the legislative role of the council and the administrative responsibilities of the executive branch, but I think you express explain that a little bit more, but I'd still like to hear a little bit more about that.

And but I still believe we have to be careful not to create a committee structure that extends beyond our charter-defined scope of work or encroaches on the executive authority.

So, to use your terms, I I don't see this as fully baked.

I think we still have a little ways to go.

You know, has there been a cost-benefit analysis?

Will there be extra cost to hold the committee meetings as you've suggested?

Will department heads be required to attend?

These are just some questions that have like, as I said, it's led to more questions.

It really hasn't clarified things.

How many committees will each member be asked to serve on in addition to to chairing?

Um furthermore, I just and I've already said that I just don't think we're there yet.

You know, I think it's a we're heading in the right direction, and I think we're hearing kind of some of the pros and cons.

But I I'd like to see, and I'm glad that the decision has been made to at least postpone this for one week so we can have some additional conversation and and ideas before we decide to move forward to repeal something or reform something fully when I think it's not totally broken.

I think it just needs a little more restructuring within the current system.

So thank you again.

Uh, thank you, colleagues, for listening, and I look forward to furthering discussion more next week.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Clerk.

Do you say councilman clerk?

Yes.

Um, thank y'all for those comments.

Um I want to rebuttal some of yours.

I don't have a typed out speech or a long you know, a lot of time because a lot of us are actually busy putting out legislation.

And what I want to say is I want to commend Vice Chairman Elliott for this proposal because I can remember when he was elected.

So thank you, uh Chairman, uh Vice Chairman Earlier, because I do believe you lead the council in producing legislation, which is which is our jobs.

I know you there's conversations about what the difference between the authority of the executive branch and the legislative branch.

Uh, this committee structure allows us to have those conversations.

Because if you remember we were sued because we were not having those conversations in the public, correct?

Okay.

I just want to make sure because I think there's this arbitrary, I believe there's some arbitrary assumptions that have been made.

One, let's talk about workload.

For one, I just want to say you can have my workload.

I won't take a committee.

So those of you who are concerned about if you're going to be a leadership, if you're the voice of your committees or not or your community is not going to be heard, it's actually impossible because our council rules still exist there.

Two of us, including you, the councilman or myself.

If I didn't attend a committee meeting, which we're not required to, you still come here on Tuesdays and with a with a second council person, you can put any resolutions on here at any time to discuss to represent your district at any time.

So, you know, I want to say that the committee structure is just one element to where legally, so we don't get sued again, that we can discuss things that maybe some council members want to go more in depth on, which is your choice.

You don't have to come to council, you'd have to come to committee meetings.

But I do not want it to be an attack or an assumption that because someone's introducing legislation that I believe is efficient, because I come from a world where we operate in committee structures where we discuss things more strategically.

Some of you do not host committee meetings, some of you don't uh attend strategic planning meetings.

I think this is an opportunity and should be looked at such.

Uh I wish more energy was put into y'all producing legislation, other than the critique of us just condensing our committee structure.

Because you can have my committee structure.

You can have my committees, and I guarantee you, district five will not lack their voice on this dais, because our council rules still allow us.

If y'all are reading the rules correctly, right?

It still allows us outside of committees to participate with one voice and one vote.

That's all you get up here.

One voice, one vote.

In or out of committee.

If you come here on Tuesdays, you get to vote one time.

So if it comes out of committee, if you attend or do not attend, it still has to become before this nine-member body, and you can use your one vote, and that's all you get.

So if you don't like what happens in committee, we're if it was nine committees, three committees, two committees, you have one vote, one voice on Tuesday during the business meeting, not the committee structures.

That's it.

Thank you, Vice Chairman Elliott, for doing your due duty.

Thank you for coming to work for one.

Secondly, let's talk about the workload, because I've heard that thrown out before as if he created this to take the workload off of him.

When he was elected, I remember him being innovative and being thoughtful about his job as a legislature and said, how do we include more departments that are not represented in our current committee structure?

So government services was created so that we can actually debate on matters and our oversight role when it comes to how we create policies that's implemented by the executive branch.

That's actually our job.

It's the same system with federal government.

The executive branch, the legislative branch.

All we're doing is creating legislative policy.

It does not encroach on their abilities.

The workload happens when you're a part of when you're at the table when you're part of the discussion.

Again, some of you don't attend strategic planning meetings all the time.

If we go back and pull your attendance records, some of you have not even hosted a committee meeting when you did have a committee.

So y'all can have my give give it to somebody who does not have a committee structure.

If that empowers them and makes them feel like a leadership title or role, gives them their voice, please give them mine today.

Because I don't know how anybody else knows what is who is getting what.

I don't know.

But if that's important, then you can have mine.

Because I guarantee you, I went to a school that taught me civics, and my voice will be heard with or without a committee assignment because I get to come to council meetings on Tuesdays.

But as far as workload, you don't get to the contradiction to me is is that my voice only matters if I'm doing what your voice is.

Like we all have, to your point, we all have one vote, one we represent one vote with one district.

And there's been this idea that we're taking away from somebody who's not in a leadership role.

You're still in the leadership role because you're a council person, because you do not serve as a committee chair.

In the House of Representatives, there's almost 432 legislatures.

They do all, they all do not serve in a leadership role.

And so it's what we're doing is not uncommon to condense and make our committee assignments more efficient, so we include more dialogue on departments that are currently not represented in our committee structure.

And I commend Vice Chairman Elliot for taking as much time as he has, as much time as you all have to look in to dissect this and to make these assumptions that somebody's you your voice is not being represented or the chair is doing less work.

Remember, the chair leads us all in legislation.

The vice chair does, including this one.

Now I don't always agree with Vice Chairman Elliott on everything, but guess what we do in committees when we have them or when we decide to show up.

We use that time to debate it legally.

And I think that this is all this is, and to make it something that's not, I think that's it's just counterproductive to what we're trying to do.

Because trust me, if if there were motive in this and I'm gonna alleviate it, again, have my committee assignments.

Here you go.

District 5 is gonna be good.

We have been good, we will continue to be good without me being a committee chair.

But I get it if that matters to some people, but do not make assumptions that someone's doing less work, that someone's trying to take away your voice because you're if the assumption, which the chair has not made any appointments yet.

So I I don't even know what those are or why anybody would assume that there's less being done because the appointments have not been made yet.

We haven't even voted on this.

And I understand that we're putting it out for a week for whatever screw up happened in the paperwork.

It happens all the time.

And I look forward to voting for this next week.

And I look forward to more council members pushing out more legislation in committee through strategic planning.

That's what I look forward to.

In committee or not, you don't have to show up to committees.

So I support this, and I'm so sorry that the assumption is being made that you're doing less work.

I don't believe that I said so.

I had to defend that, and you didn't ask me to, but I don't, I believe that this is opportunity to do more work.

And I hope our council colleagues from my left and my right seize the opportunity to be more critical in our pieces of legislation that's on our agenda.

I've seen some of y'all ask more questions about our committee structure than some of the agenda items.

So please lean in.

Use this as an opportunity to actually lean in and have that public debate so we don't get sued again.

And I wasn't on the council when that happened.

So kudos to the vice chair for coming up with an efficient way for members to lean in and actually produce legislation because that actually is our legislative duty.

Hopefully, this structure will help.

Matter of fact, while I have the floor, I have some legislation, Mr.

Chair, and I'll be introducing with preserve Chattanooga for preservation for landmarks in each of our districts that'll be on the agenda for August the 18th.

I look forward to the many questions and the dissect that.

Because we have has we have had town hall meetings, we've had strategic planning meetings.

You can email us without getting sued, without sending it to the clerk, you can actually talk to us right here on the diet's right now.

We can open up the floor on anything you want to discuss.

Or a committee.

Okay.

So councilwoman Dotley, you're on the queue next, but not everybody has spoken about this particular topic, so I'll come back to you.

Okay.

I just wanted to let you know.

Okay.

Councilwoman No.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I have waited patiently here.

Um and I hate that council McClark has stepped out because I do want to address him personally on some things.

So, but he's not here, so but I will still address.

Um you call me chair, you gave me a committee.

My committee was public safety.

Now, I'm just gonna put it on the record.

You can add three or four, or even five things underneath that.

I will not do it because I agree to public safety.

That's what I agreed to.

Now, the fact that I have an issue with the fact that you I'm gonna use your terminology, Vice Chair Elliot, your bucket.

What you put in that bucket is on a gonna only seem to benefit the sixth of you all, which I call the click six.

And how you want it, and you're gonna dismiss what the other three who got there fifty percent plus one.

And we are the ones that represent our people in our district.

Now to take control over nine districts and assign, I think it was correct me if I'm wrong.

Three people to make the decision on what you're going to discuss, and the other council people can attend, but they don't have a vote.

That is controlling.

I won't be controlled.

I've made the statement before.

No one up here is my mama, my daddy or my husband to tell me what to do.

I'm too old for you to be telling me what to do.

I'm not gonna do that.

Now you all know that you're gonna vote with the way you're gonna vote because you have aligned the six of you all have aligned yourself together.

So whatever it is that you want, whether it's good, bad or indifferent, then you're gonna push it through.

Dismiss what the other three of us here has to say.

And and Vice Chair Elliott, I have had a conversation with you, and I told you you are the one that has disappointed me the most.

Y'all stay out of order all the time.

Council one if if I could just say if we can just stay on the resolution.

Okay, so I'm just saying this has to do order.

Councilman Clark started talking about preserved Chattanooga and nobody said anything.

Now, if you're gonna point an order, don't just point a order because you may not like what councilwoman knowledge is saying.

I can talk about preserved Chattanooga now.

He said, I want to talk about not about what West Your Elliott introduced, because it's okay for us to have a debate to stop.

He talked about uh he said, and while we're speaking, I want to talk about preserved, and he brought it up, and it's okay.

We can have that conversation.

But nobody pointed an order, but nobody's going to order him, and so don't do it.

I I agree.

No, well, let me finish.

I am entitled to finish what I have to say.

Do not break when it's time for me to speak.

You let me have my say.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So what I'm saying is the six have aligned themselves, and that's not anything that I have made.

Mr.

Chair Plutta, let me tell you, I don't care what your foreign speaker.

We are back in session.

Thank you everyone for bearing with us.

Um so what we're going to do is move on in our discussion of other agenda items.

Um and when the time comes um for item nine A, um, I would appreciate a motion to defer that until August eighteenth.

Um to be on our agenda for that day.

Um and and when we do take it back up again and as we discuss any other matters tonight or any other night or day, um of course it's my job to maintain order in the meeting, which is what I did in in recessing um earlier, um, and to make sure that we stay on topic.

Um, but it's all of our jobs to abide by the rules.

Um and part of that is to have a a total sense of respect for the office and for the council.

Um and according to the rules and and Roberts rules to avoid any personal attacks.

We can uh debate and criticize legislation and ideas um all day long.

That's what we're here to do.

Um but what what we have to do council is avoid personal attacks.

Um whether here um I would hope outside of here as well.

Of course, we're all adults and we all have um you know, of course, first amendment rights as anybody does, but um when when we go away from here as well.

Um just to to have a sense of respect for the office for each other, um and to be able to debate these things um in a in a civil and and orderly way where we stay um on the topics.

So um that's uh so having said that we will move on.

Um and if there are any questions um from the council, questions or comments on any of the other motions, I'm sorry, resolutions that are on our agenda for this evening, please hit your lights.

Um we do have uh parks and outdoors resolution as well as several public works resolutions.

Seeing none, um we will move on then we will look at our purchasing I'm sorry, next week's uh proposed agenda items.

Um couple of public works ordinances.

Uh councilwoman Dodley.

I know uh we discussed the office at I'm sorry, thank you so much, Mr.

Chair, the office of the clerk to council last, I think last week, and we were uh saying that we wanted to add, I think add or just a few things.

I just wanted to confirm that uh I guess with Nicole with you, Mr.

Chair or by Chair that the items that we were discussing last week, I think into in relation to um I don't know if it if it's administrator roles and things like that.

I think it was just a few things we were discussing that we want to make sure was in there to cover for um for Nicole as far as like the admin, I guess you know, we were talking about how I think Councilman Clark had brought up, you know, the pay, and then we're talking about this not necessarily being an administrator's role, maybe or something like that.

There were some changes made um and the version that went out, um, includes those changes as the city's attorney's office made them as I understand it.

Would it be helpful to have a red line version to see where we started and where we're at?

Yeah, that'd be very helpful.

The red line version of that word.

Okay, that works.

Thank y'all so much.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Councilman Henderson.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I was wondering if we could get somebody from administration to walk us through uh under human resources the demotion policy changes that we want to do.

Good evening, Council Maid Green, Chief Operating Officer.

Um, what what would you like me to go through?

Well, just I mean, just kind of walk us through.

I mean, I've got the you know, the backup documents here, but I think just kind of go over what this is doing, what the changes are that'll make in so this is clarifying the language on what a voluntary demotion is.

Um it also talks about a salary change.

The biggest change is about appointed positions with civil service reversion rights.

So we had a um six percent and 12% demotion, maximum of 12% demotion prior to this.

Uh current so with this change with an appointed position, if they are returned by their civil service reversion rights, they will be placed in the pay range of the position that they take.

They have to not be less than they made prior to when they went to the appointed position, um, and removes or puts places their salary within that that range of the new position.

So for instance, if someone was a deputy or a um chief operating officer, and I were to revert back to a previously held position as a director of operations, my salary cannot supersede the range of the director of operations, and I would be placed back into the director of operations uh salary range.

Okay.

And currently, right now, the way it's written is they would not receive a reduction in pay.

Is that correct?

I'm sorry.

I'm I'm hard of hearing.

I'm sorry, what did you say?

Um currently how it's written written, they would not receive a reduction in pay in the demotion.

They do receive a reduction pay, but the maximum reduction is 12% currently, and so that can place them above the range of the position that they actually take.

Okay.

So it this would be a further reduction.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

We just didn't have, I just didn't have a red line version of what we were changing it from.

Okay.

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh I can get you a copy.

Okay.

Right now.

Anyone else have any questions?

Councilwoman Hill.

Thank you.

Um, I just want to shine a point of clarity on that, and then I have a question about something else.

But uh I think the key word here is a voluntary demotion.

This is someone who's been appointed and chooses to step back from that role that they would no.

No, no, no.

Just looking at voluntary demotions.

No, 7.6B is voluntary demotion, 7.6 D is appointed physicians, uh, civil service reversion rights specifically.

So that's voluntary or involuntary.

Okay, then yeah, I definitely need that documentation as well.

Thank you.

Yep, not a problem.

I'll send it out.

Because the link, the link that we have in our um agenda only goes to the resolution.

It doesn't have the follow-up information in it.

I will send that to you as soon as I walk.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, and then Mr.

Chair, I wanted to come back to um the clerk of the council.

Um, I um respect the ideas that were brought forth um in strategic planning about examining the way that salary is um determined and moves forward within our council office.

Um, however, I think that needs a lot more thought um and budget planning um and HR examination before those changes are made.

Um as I see it, the way that um our council, our clerk to council brought this um resolution to us, it was to formally establish the authority of that office.

Um frankly, I see it as a as a point of importance as we bring in another member of staff in the past that that we've had issues with that of our um of our clerk staff being seen as administrative assistant to someone like legislative, which is not their job.

Um, so um as I see it, our council, our our clerk to council worked with legal to craft a resolution that meets the needs of our clerk to council at this immediate time, and I would suggest that we not money the waters, go ahead and get this passed and take a hard and intentional look at the salary piece in a separate conversation.

And I would see, Mr.

Chair, that that would be something that might um fall to you, sir, to work with HR and our attorney to consider and bring council um ideas.

I personally don't love talking about all of that and just big grand ideas um in strategic planning.

I think it just needs a little bit more thoughtfulness.

Thank you.

That's all.

Okay.

All right, council.

Are there any other questions on resolutions on next week's agenda?

We'll look then at the purchasing items on our agenda for this evening.

Um, we do have four, and also a sole source purchase.

Are there any questions or comments about any of those?

All right, seeing none, we'll turn then to items on future consideration.

Vice Chair Elliott.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

For the sake of brevity, I am going to reserve most of my comments on for this item for next week.

But I have some concerns about um our some questions about our storefront program for River City.

Um, I think some folks have gone away, but please expect those next week.

Um, just so we can discuss them in the public.

But I won't go into them tonight for the sake of brevity, but next week.

Okay.

All right.

Council, any other questions or comments about any items on future consideration.

All right, seeing none.

We are in the interest of time since we recessed earlier um unexpectedly, we will move right into the the voting portion of our meeting.

Um, Madam Clerk, if you would please read item nine a approval.

We we approved the minutes before we did enter them.

Okay.

That's my call.

So item 9a, Madam Clerk.

A resolution to repeal resolution number 3280 adopted on February 17, 2026, and adopting new rules of operation for the Chattanooga City Council.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I like to move to the furthest to August 18th.

Council, we do have a motion properly seconded to defer this item to August 18th.

Are there any questions or comments?

All in favor, uh any opposed.

And the resolution will be deferred until the August 18th agenda.

Item 9B, please, Madam Clerk.

A resolution authorized the mirror is designated to enter into a conservation services agreement for 2026-2027 with trust for public land and substantially the form and tax for a term of one year from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 for an amount not to exceed 150,000 to be paid in full quarterly install installments of 37,500.

Sorry.

Council, we do have a motion properly seconded on this resolution.

Are there any questions or comments before we vote?

All in favor?

Any opposed?

And the resolution is adopted.

Item 9C, please, Madam Clerk.

Resolution authorizing administrative for the Department of Public Works to amend the sub-recipient agreement with the trust for public land for the altar connector phase three previously authorized by resolution number 32412 to increase the sub-resupian award amount of 44,069 due to add its scope for environmental site analysis regulatory review and plan development for a rise amount not to exceed 1 million 87,069.

Council, we have a motion properly seconded on this resolution.

Are there any questions or comments?

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

And the resolution is adopted.

Item 90, please, Madam Clerk.

A resolution authorizing the administrative for the Department of Public Works to award contract number M25002201 facilities management roof replacement.

The Genesis Roofing Company Inc.

in the amount of 149,955 and authorizing a contingency of 14,300 for a total amount not to exceed 157,255.

157,255.

Second.

Council, we do have a motion properly seconded on this resolution.

Are there any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

And the resolution is adopted.

Resolution rename the 2200 block of East 21st Street, West of South Warway Street to the 2200 block of Pickleball Court as shown on the attached map.

Move to approve.

Council, we do have a motion properly seconded.

And um as far as questions or comments, Councilwoman Hill, you're recognized.

Thank you.

So this item came with a recommendation for denial by public works.

Um, so just wanted to understand the thought process on moving forward with naming it pickleball.

Vice Chair, you're thank you, madam chair.

Um, for if I understand correctly, public works has these set procedures and rules they outlined as far as road changes.

And if I'm not mistaken, this one is along 21st Avenue, 21st Street, whichever one it is.

Um they don't like breaking up some of those streets.

For me, I felt comfortable with that because this leaks to a dead end.

They it runs straight into a private property, but they have certain criteria stipulations that it did not meet.

But using my judgment, I feel like this is appropriate.

Um, the property owners in that area uh who are looking to rezone it, they own like two thirds of it, and that's like one of the house on that street that has also agreed to the change.

Okay, yeah, yes, ma'am.

Any other questions or comments, council, before we vote?

One one thing your attorney will advise you on.

You need all nine people here to vote on this item.

No problem.

Okay.

All in favor, Clark.

Aye.

Any opposed?

I think that was nine.

That was not.

I think you're good.

All right.

Resolution is adopted.

Um item nine F, please, Madam Clerk.

A resolution authorizing the appointment of Michael Slider as a special police officer unarmed for the city of Chattanooga Department of Public Works to perform the duties expressly limited to the performance of the duties in the land development office.

Second.

Council, we do have a motion properly seconded on this resolution.

Are there any questions or comments?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

And the resolution is adopted.

Item nine G, please.

A resolution authorized the appointment of John Adam Barnett as a special police officer unarmed for the city of Chattanooga Department of Public Works to perform the duties expressly limited to the performance of the duties and the land development office.

Move to approve.

Council, we have a motion properly seconded on this resolution.

Are there any questions or comments before we vote?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

And the resolution is adopted.

And that takes us to purchases.

Welcome, Debbie to the podium.

Sorry you've had to be here so long this evening.

No problem.

Thank you, sir.

Um, good evening, council.

I have four purchases recommended for your approval tonight.

The first one is for technology services.

This is a year for renewal.

Technology services is requesting an amount increase of four thousand one hundred forty dollars for agreement PA10055 to add one additional claims admin user license.

The new annual amount limit will be 71,190.

Number two is for technology services.

This is a new agreement for rec track web track work group advanced software subscription bundle.

This will be a three-year agreement with an annual annual amount limit of $52,960 and 13 cents.

This single source agreement will be awarded to Vermont Systems.

Number three is a new agreement for software project management platform.

This will be a three-year agreement with an annual amount limit of $89,626 and 68 cents.

This single source agreement will be awarded to Monday.com.

Number four is for public works.

Fleet management is requesting an increase of $25,816.

Um for uh purchase order PUR 148920.

This purchase was originally awarded to Environmental Products Group in the amount of $1,040,131 and 60 cents and approved by council on March 15, 2025 for two 2025 Libris side loading garbage trucks.

This increase is next necessary to cover two 2026 chassis installed on the trucks.

Bring in the new total uh spend to 1,065,947 and 60 cents.

Council, we do have a motion probably seconded to approve these purchases.

Are there any questions or comments before we vote?

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

And the purchases are approved.

Um I have one sole source to report.

This is for technology services.

This is eproval permitting software.

Access to e-proval web-based portal for a period of one year with an unlimited number of users in the amount of 45,000.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

We'll go around the dais for committee reports.

We'll start with Councilman Henderson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, I have sent you an email requesting that uh Chris A.

Cuff come on the 18th, August 18th, during our strategic planning committee to go over some uh remaining items that we had on that report uh that he had one is our comparable cities that we would like to establish uh as well as a couple of other things.

So uh just to point out that he uh well I have requested that he come on the 18th.

Sure.

All right, yeah, and just so the council remembers that day is is open for any council member who has legislative priorities or or policies or things of that nature to discuss with the council.

So please let me know.

I'm happy to add those to the agenda.

And councilwoman Hill.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I don't have um an economic development report, but I did want to say a public thank you to public works who um gave us a really informative um council session on the Birchwood Landfill and the expansion that we're gonna need to do today.

Um I learned a great deal and certainly um became aware that garbage is the issue of our time.

Um it's it's something we have to take really seriously, and I'm very grateful for the work and the thoughtfulness with which our public works team is approaching that.

Thank you.

Okay.

And Councilman Harvey.

No.

Councilman Clerk.

No report, Mr.

Chair.

Councilwoman Dotley.

No report.

Councilwoman Burrs.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

We will have a planning and zoning meeting next week.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'll say this.

You know, I appreciate everybody leaning into tough conversations as we move forward as a council.

I implore us to all remember.

Um, we serve the city.

Sometimes we could have heated conversations and don't always agree, but I think we owe it to ourselves.

Um our districts to have to keep these conversations about the substance of what's presented.

Uh, and just keep that focus.

I I look forward to us moving to brighter days as a council where we can push some of these animosities behind us and really lean in to serve our city and our districts to the best of our abilities.

That's almost true.

We're now to that portion of the meeting where we're happy to hear from members of the public who are here and would like to address council.

And so if you are here for that purpose, if you would please line up at the podium down front and listen while our attorney reads the rules, we would just ask that you listen carefully and abide by the rules.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And at the end of each council business meeting, 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 up front at the microphone provided for that purpose.

You can't have more than three minutes to speak, and you 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 engage in 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 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 state your name and your district, sir.

Jacob, District 9, Minlo Park.

I'd like to start by saying I was really enjoying the live stream.

Whoever's back there running it, please don't cut to break so quickly next time.

Nonprofits of Chattanooga is the topic I'd like to address you all today.

Uh and kind of walk through a case study on the Chattanooga Tourism Company.

I think that we're not funding them anymore, but last year they received a million dollars in tourism tax funding.

Uh, and their executive compensation from their most recent 990 for five people was over a million dollars.

Everyone else employed by them was paid a cumulative 1.8 million and add in the benefits, taxes, etc.

And the annual personnel cost for this nonprofit comes to just shy of 3.5 million dollars.

They, of course, will tell you that they're paying the city back tenfold with the tourist tax revenue that has brought in.

However, I believe the other projects that we have funded with the tourist tax, such as the Riverfront Park and the Walnut Street Bridge, are truly what draw in tourists and make Chattanooga a wonderful place to live and play.

I don't think that Chattanooga Tourism Company or other bloated expensive nonprofits like it should receive any more taxpayer dollars.

How about Caleb, our Chattanoogans in Action for Love, Equality, and Benevolence, the organization that is supposed to run the land trust.

They had an annual budget in 2024 of about $800,000 and annual compensation expenses of $400,000, twice as much as they spent on their primary stated purpose at the time of bail funds and voter education.

Does not sound like an organization we should be putting in charge of a perpetual land trust to me.

I know the lady at the River City Company has a salary of 250K, and the second in command has a salary of 150K.

I surmise those two do the work of eight average Chattanoogans.

It sounds like the most profitable job in Chattanooga is to be running a nonprofit.

I can't help but wonder how many 200,000 plus salaries the taxpayers of the city are funding.

I'm not against spending, but I would rather see transparent programs run through the city, like the down payment assistance program over funding a permanent ecosystem of nonprofits.

I'm confident that these taxpayer-funded organizations are not outliers and that those looking will find inflated compensation at most every nonprofit that comes before you begging for our money.

I encourage council to review personal compensation of nonprofits seeking funding, and that tax funds should not be contributing to any nonprofits profits where more than 25% of the budget is spent on admin.

This is industry standard.

As a side note, I support the Plan Chattanooga's vision for the Brainerd German town road intersection and the development of a sidewalk along German town road and the wider Plan Chattanooga vision as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council.

My name's Graham Bonnington.

I am in District One.

Uh I come here tonight.

Well, I came here this afternoon from my job in Amnicola District 8.

Uh I came here because I've been talking to a lot of people around the city, and they're very concerned about the actual time that we actually hold public meetings.

3:30.

I had to take off time for my job to come down here to talk to you people.

Uh I understand there was previous uh calling uh workforce housing is what uh Chip over here said about uh the uh affordable housing.

And I'm thinking maybe Chattanooga needs to be a workforce city and needs to take into consideration the workforce of our people that work here in the city that have the concerns of uh what is a very tumultuous time, not just in Chattanooga, but federally, nationally, around the world.

And there are a lot of people in this city that uh cannot come to these council meetings because of the time in the middle of the day where we are working our shifts, working on the factory floor.

We cannot come to these cities, city meetings to voice our concerns.

Just a simple Google search will show Signal Mountain, East Ridge, uh Red Bank, uh Knoxville, Tennessee, Nashville, 6:30, all the rest, 6 p.m.

So I'm really curious as to why the city of Chattanooga holds their meetings at 3:30 in the middle of the day when the workers cannot come and uh voice their concerns about the place that where they live.

Uh I've been working in this city since the year 2000.

I was born here.

Uh and uh now it's the time that I feel that I want to get more involved uh with all of the issues that are coming uh that I'm that I'm learning about from my from the people that I work with, people that I live with.

And uh it's it's I think just making that simple step of changing the meeting time so that the workforce of Chattanooga has a chance to voice their concerns to the council with these various issues that are uh surrounding us on a daily basis.

And thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name's Antonio Boston.

I'm the CEO of All-Style Foundations here in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

I want three businesses here in the city of Chattanooga.

It's been amazing with me with the city and going through something with y'all right now.

I wish y'all can just speed it up.

It's costing me a lot of money.

I'm almost 100 something in a hole in attorney fees, playing around with the city.

But as my foundation, I would like to say I thank y'all for letting me use Miller Park on Father's Day weekend.

I bring the biggest one, the biggest minority festivals is for everybody.

Black white, it's bringing it to the city of downtown Chattanooga.

Y'all ain't had a crowd like this since River Band.

I brought the barbecue festival with some success.

I think Chattanooga Police Department and Public Works, they came through, they did what they said they were gonna do.

I don't have a problem with that.

The problem I have is I have a big nonprofit here.

I just hit the Lakers here yesterday at East Hampton High School.

I'm bringing these celebrities into my city.

And I got a nonprofit, but y'all throwing all this money around in city council, AR funds, y'all finding money.

I listen to y'all every week on YouTube.

I got about 200 people watching y'all.

We keep paying some money up, but it's nothing that's happening in our city.

Crap's still going up.

I know that.

I'm a bail bondsman.

I burn out 85% of the people in the city of Chattanooga.

I want I'm the owner of all-style bunding company.

We say we're gonna do things and do things right.

It ain't happening.

It looked good on paper, but reality, I'm in these streets for real.

I see everybody all day.

White black experience from all over the city.

If you live in Chattanooga and you don't know me, you don't live here.

I throw a lot of events in the city coming out of my pocket because I love my city.

But we gotta do better.

And I and I don't send emails to the mayor's office to somebody in the K-R-O-I-G-C.

Whoever they do, my secretary, my assistant keeps in emails.

They tell me they're gonna get back with us.

At this point, I don't need to sit all money.

Because we're gonna make a difference regardless.

I don't want to be played with.

We keep knowing the money.

I can save the city so much money.

I got so many connections.

I'm working with the world's biggest NIE idea.

We're gonna draft some people from Chattanooga and put them in the NFA or the NBA.

I travel every week to different cities.

But my city I live in, I own property here.

I own businesses here.

I bring celebrities here.

I spent a lot of money.

Uh a couple years ago, I put a two million dollars to downtown Chattanooga.

I bring the River City football tournament here.

50 teams from around the world come to Chattanooga, playing different high schools.

I just want to sit down with somebody at the mayor's office, tell them what they're doing with this money.

I see a lot of money going out, but a lot of things in my community is not happening.

Y'all say it is, I'm out there.

The wrong people is getting the money and ain't doing nothing with it.

We gotta stop giving our money.

I love y'all.

Stop giving the money out.

Have rescriptions.

They can't do the work, stop paying them.

I don't play my employees, they can't do the work.

But I love y'all, God bless y'all.

And I hope we can get some understanding, some kind of way.

Because I'm losing money in the city I live in.

And I love y'all.

Bye.

Thank you.

Hello.

Um, my name is Evelyn Cote.

I think I claim technically a venture inside as a temporary thing, but uh live clientele life pretty much.

Um firstly, I will echo my sentiments to my friend and reiterate my statement for the police week, including the city council to move the meetings to after work hours.

The way that the Clinton Smith is set up set up is that the the actual time time period can vary really wildly.

Um in fact it's almost an hour and a half different from what was last week, and so if you don't have a consistent time to give to people, they don't show up because people have need to know when they're available.

I'm saying we'll move some, but again, this was a solid issue.

Um some members of the council spoke earlier on making sure the voices of the constituents were being represented.

What better way to ensure that they're being represented than having a consistent time period to access after work?

Secondly, uh to address uh something earlier.

I would like to encourage you all to approve the maximum amount of of public housing available.

It sounds like the with where the process it is, yeah, uh approving this right now is that this is time sensitive, and then that if you don't approve it, essentially that that public housing option gets lost.

Um the feel about low unc uh the feel expressed at times about low-income housing, I find it's distasteful.

We need housing.

We want a government that delivers, and that is a great place to do this.

My generation is increasingly unable to afford even basic rent.

Um simple supply law of supply and demand says that we need more housing to lower the price.

Um and the federal government is offering money through this process.

Um free money doesn't come around office office.

So I really encourage you to to approve as much public housing as possible in this upcoming process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to address the council this evening?

Move to adjourn.

All right, we do have a motion to adjourn, seconded, and all in favor?

We are adjourned.