5/20/25 Chattanooga City Council Strategic Planning Meeting
5/20 Chattanooga City Council Strategic Planning Meeting
Key Discussion Points
1. Organizational Values (0:07–1:03)
Summary: The council reviewed five core values identified from a prior voting process: mutual respect, professionalism, honesty, curiosity, and collaboration. These values are intended to guide how council members work together. No concerns or feedback were raised, and the values were accepted as presented.
Analysis: The quick consensus suggests strong alignment among council members on these values, which likely serve as a foundation for their strategic planning and collaborative efforts. This aligns with the May 13 meeting’s emphasis on intentional and thoughtful council processes (e.g., budget education sessions, committee work).
2. Shared Legislative Priorities (1:03–5:51)
Summary: The council discussed citywide legislative priorities, grouped into six categories based on issues supported by multiple members. These were:
Infrastructure Funding:
Assess infrastructure maintenance liability.
Establish recurring revenue for maintenance and expansion.
Secure city water for Raccoon Mountain residents.
Economic Revitalization and Neglected Community Corridors:
Identify priority corridors for asset-based revitalization.
Support grocery stores in food deserts.
Suggestion to add “identify public-private partnerships” for revitalization (proposed by an unnamed council member).
Land Development Office (LDO) Policy Improvement:
Streamline development processes while ensuring community-centered growth.
Amend LDO ordinances to reduce home-building costs.
Homelessness Support Ecosystem Improvement:
Create a low/no-barrier homeless shelter.
Improve homelessness strategies and policies.
Budget Policy Reform:
Update policies for a conservative, realistic approach (e.g., general fund reserves, one-time revenue, fiscal notes).
Support prevention-focused public safety strategies.
Address gaps in code enforcement to prevent long-term violations.
Analysis: These priorities reflect a mix of immediate community needs (e.g., homelessness, food deserts) and long-term structural goals (e.g., infrastructure, budget reform). The addition of public-private partnerships indicates a focus on leveraging external resources, a theme consistent with the May 13 meeting’s economic development resolutions (e.g., surplus property sales, Land Bank proceeds). The priorities also align with public comments from May 13, which emphasized infrastructure and transparency (e.g., open data concerns).
3. Working Group Assignments (5:51–13:49)
Summary: To advance these priorities, the council proposed forming working groups outside the traditional committee structure, allowing members to volunteer and lead based on interest. Assignments were:
Infrastructure Funding: Led by Councilman Elliot; joined by Councilwoman Hill.
Economic Revitalization: Led by Councilman Davis; joined by Councilman Elliot.
Land Development Office (LDO): Led by Councilwoman Dotley; joined by Councilwoman Hill, Councilman Davis.
Budget Policy Reform: Led by Councilwoman Dotley; joined by Councilman Elliot, Councilwoman Hill.
Homelessness: Led by Councilman Davis; joined by Councilman Henderson, Councilwoman Hill, Councilman Cody.
Safety Improvements: Led by Councilman Clark; joined by Councilman Henderson, Councilwoman Hill, Councilman Cody.
Code Enforcement: Led by Councilwoman Hill; joined by Councilman Cody.
Process: Working group meetings will be public, coordinated through Nicole (council clerk), with leads responsible for scheduling. Updates will be provided periodically.
Analysis: The working group model allows flexibility and cross-district collaboration, addressing citywide issues without being tied to specific departments. This approach complements the May 13 meeting’s focus on policy-driven resolutions (e.g., zoning, employee policy changes) and public engagement (e.g., budget hearings). The inclusion of multiple members per group ensures diverse perspectives, though overlapping memberships (e.g., Hill and Elliot in multiple groups) may stretch capacity.
4. Proposed Ordinances (13:49–17:16)
Chicken Ordinance (Councilman Henderson):
Details in the packet; to be reviewed in the Legislative Committee chaired by Vice Chairwoman Null.
No specific discussion, indicating it’s in early stages.
Single Stair Ordinance (Councilwoman Hill):
Aims to reduce multifamily housing construction costs by allowing single stairwells in certain buildings, aligning with LDO policy improvement goals.
Supported by research showing single stairwells can be safe if designed within specific parameters (e.g., size limits, safety features).
Builds on prior council efforts (e.g., sprinkler ordinance 18 months ago) to make housing more affordable.
Developed with input from Chris Anderson, Hanukkah, Nicole, Megan, and the LDO to avoid pitfalls.
Will move to the Legislative Committee for further review.
Analysis: The single stair ordinance directly ties to the LDO priority, reflecting a proactive approach to affordable housing seen in the May 13 meeting (e.g., zoning amendments for short-term rentals, TRN3 zones). The chicken ordinance is less detailed but may address urban agriculture or community concerns, a topic not covered in the May 13 artifact. Both ordinances show the council’s legislative focus, as emphasized in the working group structure.
5. Director of Legislative Affairs and Constituent Services Proposal (17:16–1:06:47)
Summary: Councilman Elliot and Councilwoman Null proposed creating a new staff position, Director of Legislative Affairs and Constituent Services, to support council members. Key points:
Role:
Legislative Affairs: Research policy, track state/federal legislation, provide briefings, and support ordinance development (e.g., Elliot’s beautification commission idea).
Constituent Services: Manage requests, coordinate neighborhood meetings, handle communications (press releases, social media), and support scheduling.
Justification:
Council members are part-time, with demanding day jobs, needing additional capacity.
Other cities (Knoxville, Huntsville, Birmingham) have similar roles for part-time councils.
Past administrations allegedly withheld constituent services from non-compliant council members, necessitating an independent resource.
Background:
Similar roles existed previously (e.g., management analyst, repealed in 2016) but were ineffective due to narrow scope and lack of accountability.
A prior UTC research contract was clunky and underutilized.
Concerns:
Councilwoman Hill: Questioned combining legislative and constituent services, citing different skill sets. Expressed skepticism about constituent services’ impact if an administration obstructs a district (e.g., brush pickup). Preferred a focus on legislative support and suggested revisiting UTC-style contracts.
Councilman Henderson: Noted that administration obstruction could occur regardless of a council-run constituent services role. Suggested expanding existing staff roles (e.g., Melissa, council support specialist) instead of creating a new position.
Councilwoman Burrs: Supported the role for new members but preferred hands-on management of her district’s issues. Suggested a summer intern (Trinity Williams, starting July 1) as a pilot to test the role’s scope.
Councilman Clark: Supported the legislative focus, emphasizing the council’s role as a legislative body. Concerned about duplicating existing constituent services (led by Kim Strong in the executive branch) and suggested redefining “constituent services” as communications/PR.
Councilwoman Dotley: Supported the role, citing the need for legislative support and the council’s $100,000 contract services budget (unused in FY25) to fund it.
Funding:
Could use the $100,000 contract services budget, supplemented by general funds for benefits.
HR conducted a compensation study, setting a pay range based on similar roles in other cities.
Reporting Structure:
Options: Report to the chair (like the council clerk), vice chair, or a standalone committee (e.g., Legislative Committee).
Requires a professional with government experience, not needing close supervision.
Next Steps:
Elliot to revise the proposal with Null, addressing concerns (e.g., splitting constituent services, clarifying scope).
Revisit at the next strategic planning meeting.
Analysis: The proposal reflects the council’s desire to enhance its legislative capacity, aligning with the May 13 meeting’s focus on policy-driven work (e.g., zoning, budget reforms). However, concerns about duplicating existing constituent services (handled by Kim Strong’s team, praised in the transcript) and the feasibility of combining skill sets highlight logistical challenges. The historical failure of similar roles (e.g., management analyst) and the UTC contract underscores the need for clear accountability, as Elliot proposed with monthly reports. The intern suggestion offers a low-risk trial, but its limited scope (one month, student-level) may not fully test the role’s demands. The $100,000 contract budget provides a funding pathway, consistent with the May 13 artifact’s emphasis on fiscal responsibility (e.g., budget education sessions).
6. Fee Waiver Resolution for East Chattanooga Rec Center (1:07:24–1:15:59)
Summary: Councilman Clark proposed a one-time fee waiver for an AAU basketball team using the East Chattanooga Community Rec Center, which charges $100/hour with a 2-hour minimum ($200 total). Key points:
Background:
The fee structure, approved in 2024, is the highest for urban community centers, enforced since April 2025.
The team, including children of city workers, historically used the gym for free but now faces costs for practice (April–July for AAU tournaments).
Clark personally sponsored the team ($200/week) to cover fees temporarily.
Purpose:
Waive fees for this group until the fee structure ordinance can be amended.
Address barriers to low-income children accessing tax-funded facilities.
Discussion:
Councilman Davis: Clarified that AAU teams are not rec leagues; parents raise funds for equipment (e.g., cleats, basketballs), not participation fees. Supported the waiver, noting the center’s low utilization and the need to overhaul the fee structure.
Councilman Elliot: Supported removing barriers, suggesting fees for private events (e.g., birthday parties) but not for gym use during business hours. Proposed amending the ordinance to clarify when fees apply.
Councilwoman Hill: Urged caution to avoid setting a precedent, noting that fee waivers are granted for free community events (e.g., Riverfront Nights, May 13 artifact) but not paid events (e.g., Moon River). Emphasized the thoughtful fee structure developed by Parks and Recreation and Community Development.
Next Steps: Ongoing discussion to amend the fee ordinance, balancing access and fiscal considerations.
Analysis: The waiver addresses immediate community needs, particularly for low-income youth, aligning with the May 13 artifact’s focus on community engagement (e.g., park fee waivers for Riverfront Nights). However, Hill’s concern about precedent reflects the council’s fiscal responsibility, seen in the May 13 budget discussions. The high fee structure for urban centers raises equity concerns, especially given low utilization, and the proposed ordinance amendment could tie to the safety improvements priority (e.g., community-focused public safety).
Connections to May 13, 2025, City Council Meeting Artifact
Policy and Legislative Focus:
The May 21 discussion on working groups and the legislative affairs position mirrors the May 13 meeting’s emphasis on policy-driven resolutions (e.g., zoning changes, EIG updates) and budget education sessions, indicating a council prioritizing legislative capacity.
The single stair ordinance aligns with May 13’s zoning amendments (e.g., TRN3 zones, short-term rental limits), both aimed at affordable housing and responsible development.
Community Engagement:
The fee waiver for the rec center echoes the May 13 park fee waiver for Riverfront Nights ($18,000), showing a consistent effort to remove barriers to community access.
Public comments from May 13 (e.g., infrastructure, open data, police pay) resonate with May 21 priorities like infrastructure funding, budget reform, and safety improvements.
Fiscal Responsibility:
The May 21 debate over funding the new staff position (using contract services budget) and the cautious approach to fee waivers reflect the May 13 focus on fiscal notes, budget hearings, and cost efficiencies (e.g., public works contracts).
Infrastructure and Public Works:
The infrastructure funding priority connects to the May 13 stormwater performance report, which detailed flood mitigation and maintenance challenges, reinforcing the need for recurring revenue.
Additional Observations
Council Dynamics: The transcript shows a collaborative yet cautious council, with new members (five noted) seeking support (e.g., legislative affairs role) while veterans like Hill and Henderson emphasize efficiency and precedent. The values discussion and working group assignments suggest a cohesive approach, but debates over the new position reveal diverse management styles (e.g., Dotley’s hands-on approach vs. Elliot’s capacity concerns).
Community Priorities: The focus on homelessness, food deserts, and youth access (rec center) indicates responsiveness to constituent needs, consistent with May 13 public comments on infrastructure and transparency.
Challenges: Combining legislative and constituent services in one role remains contentious, with valid concerns about skill sets and duplication. The fee waiver debate highlights tensions between equity and fiscal policy, requiring careful ordinance amendments.
Recommendations for Next Steps
Legislative Affairs Position:
Revise the job description to focus primarily on legislative support (policy research, ordinance development), with constituent services redefined as communications/PR to avoid duplicating Kim Strong’s team.
Pilot the intern role (Trinity Williams, July 1–August 5) to test legislative research tasks, but recognize its limitations for high-level work.
Explore a blanket contract with consultants (e.g., UTC, Chris Anderson) as an alternative, ensuring internal access to departments.
Fee Waiver and Ordinance Amendment:
Approve the one-time waiver for the AAU team to ensure immediate access, but tie it to a timeline for reviewing the fee structure ordinance.
Form a working group (potentially under safety improvements or economic revitalization) to propose fee structure changes, prioritizing low-income access and distinguishing between private and community use.
Working Groups:
Schedule initial public meetings for each working group, with leads coordinating through Nicole to ensure transparency.
Prioritize infrastructure funding and homelessness, given their urgency and alignment with May 13 discussions (e.g., stormwater, public works).
Ordinances:
Advance the single stair ordinance through the Legislative Committee, leveraging its research-backed safety parameters to build consensus.
Clarify the chicken ordinance’s scope (e.g., urban agriculture, zoning) to assess its fit with strategic priorities.
