Memphis City Council Meeting – February 20, 2024: MLGW Salary Dispute, Stormwater Bonds, and Health Benefits Ordinance Defeated
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Memphis City Council Meeting – February 20, 2024
The Memphis City Council met on February 20, 2024, to address several items including a proposed salary for a new MLGW vice president, multiple resolutions for stormwater infrastructure funding, and a controversial ordinance to extend health benefits to elected officials. The council voted to send the MLGW salary item back to committee, approved stormwater bonds and other resolutions, and defeated the health benefits ordinance after public opposition. The meeting also featured public comments on transparency and city projects.
Consent Calendar
- Item 22: Resolution to transfer $1 million for curb and gutter replacements in all council districts. Passed unanimously.
- Item 23: Resolution to transfer $1 million for ADA curb ramp improvements. Passed unanimously.
- Item 24: Resolution authorizing a WIFEA master agreement with the EPA for up to $50,470,000 for stormwater system improvements. Passed unanimously.
- Item 25: Resolution authorizing $10,300,000 in stormwater system revenue bonds. Passed unanimously.
- Item 26: Resolution authorizing an additional $10,300,000 in stormwater system revenue bonds. Passed unanimously.
- Item 27: Resolution to amend the Memphis City Council rules of procedure. Passed unanimously.
- Item 19: Ordinance to establish Memphis City Council meeting dates for 2024 (third reading). Passed unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Cheryl Piggy Craig (District 7) urged a "no" vote on the health benefits ordinance, citing high poverty rates (21.4% overall, 33% for children) and the burden on taxpayers.
- Vanessa Coburn (38108) criticized the proposal as self-serving, noting that many citizens and city employees must pay for their own insurance.
- Melissa Renard (38111) stated she works 60–70 hours a week at two jobs and still cannot afford insurance, calling the ordinance "absolutely absurd."
- Mary Phoebus (38128, age 77) opposed the measure, stating she worked full-time since age 15 and paid her own insurance, and deemed it unfair to expect taxpayers to fund part-time council members' benefits.
- Kendrick Simpson (38117) expressed anger, calling the proposal "self-serving" and highlighting public safety concerns (carjackings, potholes) that affect residents daily.
- Cameron Stevens (Business Agent, International Union of Operating Engineers) noted that union-represented city workers (parks, public works, etc.) retire with no health benefits, while council members sought lifetime coverage for a part-time role.
- Joe Kent (511 from Mingo) discussed non-transparent nonprofits and questioned parking revenue at Mud Island and the Brooks project, asking for formal reasons why the latter cannot be discussed.
- Walter Brody (3356 Just Street) prayed and asked about ownership of the Mid-South Coliseum, expressing a desire to purchase it for a spiritual center.
Discussion Items
- MLGW Vice President of Communications Salary (Item 10): The council considered a resolution to approve a salary over $180,000 for a new MLGW vice president of communications (Ms. Madden, from Blue Oval SK). Councilman Carlisle noted that for a $2 billion revenue utility, $200,000 is a steal compared to private sector compensation. MLGW President McGowan stated the salary is at the midpoint of the range, and MLGW's executive compensation is 0.22% of total revenue—less than half of other Tennessee utilities. Several council members moved to send the item back to the MLGW committee for further questions. The motion passed unanimously (all yes).
- Health Benefits for Elected Officials (Ordinance 5895, Item 20 – Third Reading): Councilwoman Swearingen Washington moved to hold the item until August for research and public education. Councilman Carlisle opposed the hold, arguing it would be a distraction and that public opinion (based on thousands of emails) opposes the benefit. Councilman Warren urged a direct vote down, stating other city needs (crime, streets, garbage) are more pressing. The motion to hold failed (2 yes – Swearingen Washington, Walker, Smiley; 10 no, 1 abstain?). The original ordinance then came to a vote: it failed with 1 abstention (Ford) and 11 no votes (all others).
Key Outcomes
- MLGW Salary Item (Item 10): Motion to refer back to the MLGW committee on March 5, 2024, passed unanimously (all 13 council members voting yes). The item will be heard again in two weeks.
- Stormwater Infrastructure (Items 24, 25, 26): All three resolutions passed unanimously, authorizing a $50.47 million WIFEA agreement and two $10.3 million bond issuances for stormwater improvements.
- Council Rules Amendment (Item 27): Passed unanimously.
- Meeting Dates Ordinance (Item 19): Passed unanimously on third reading.
- Health Benefits Ordinance (Item 20): Defeated after third reading; no votes from 11 members, 1 abstention (Ford). The ordinance will not take effect.
- Same Night Minutes: Approved for items 6, 8, 9, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27.
- Announcement: PD 2325 hearing rescheduled to March 19, 2024.
Next Steps: The MLGW salary item will be reconsidered at the MLGW committee meeting on March 5, 2024. Councilman Carlisle noted that Director Connect will meet with members to discuss stormwater project funding in their districts.
Meeting Transcript
Is this a raise from the current salary? What is the top committee? Representative from MLT and W can answer that question. So any questions you have about the item you can direct them to the job. Okay, what can I ask? What is the job description? So usually what happens. Mr. McGowan. Okay, so one of the considerations that you might have is to refer this matter back to an appropriate committee where you can have all the questions you want rather than deal with it tonight. But if you want to deal with it tonight, you can do that. But that would be the prudent thing to do. So should we so should we motion to I move to send this item back to committee on March 5th for the MLGW. So move by Councilwoman Walker, seconded by Swan J. Washington. There's still two other members in the queue, Councilman uh Carlisle and well, take the back. Councilwoman Swearinger Washington. Spinoza. Oh, we it's been we have a motion moved by Walker, seconded by uh Sware Washington. But to respect the council members, we're gonna allow them to uh ask their questions to speak their peaks prior to uh taking a vote on the motion. Councilwoman Swearinger Washington. Thank you, Chair. That's what I was going to ask to make a motion to send it back to the personnel committee in two weeks. MLGW committee in two weeks. Yes. Is it okay? We have figured it out. We'll figure it out from our point. Councilman, so councilwoman Swan Washington. Are you coming in? Councilman Carl, are you next? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, if memory serves me, I think we've typically heard all of the MLG MLGW appointments in the MLGW committee. However, it's the chair's prerogative. Um I haven't, you know, I'm not gonna object to this. I know we've got several new members that would like to have an opportunity, and I don't I don't know if Chief McGowan um wants to make a few remarks. I'll certainly um if it's okay with the chair recognize them, but um the information that comes, I I'll just make a quick comment generally, and this may come off probably wrong, and I'll circle back. But the but the reality is is I know people see 200,000, and that's a lot of money for a lot of people, but this is a company that does two billion dollars a year annually in revenue. If this were a private sector job, it would be what the c the total compensation package would be well over a million dollars a year for a C CO. What they're calling a vice president of communications. That's that's not a that's just a fact. It's not a hard fact. It'd be a base compensation of somewhere between 200 to 500,000, and that's just to pay the tax bill on the stock options they would award that individual. So I I just want to get that out there because I do recognize it sounds like a lot of money, and and there's gonna be a comment about how it's a public utility, etc. etc. But for a $2 billion revenue a year company, $200,000 for a uh what really is a chief communications officer is steal. Um if you want to to attorney Wade's point, debate that individual's qualifications or whether they're a good fit for the organization, you're certainly entitled to do so, but I wouldn't get caught up in how this seemingly is is highway robbery and way too expensive. Um four-year analysts in the energy sector make 280,000 dollars a year for private gas and oil companies.
openpublica.com