(upbeat music) - [Narrator 1] You're watching highlights of the Chattanooga City Council meeting, a production of WTCI PBS.

(upbeat music fades out) - Under Mayor's Office, Madame Clerk, would you please read, and without objection from the council, as a package, items B through P, please.

(paper flipping) - Item B.

- Yes ma'am.

Thank you.

Madame Clerk, please.

- Yes.

A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's reappointment of Jim Williamson's to the Form-Based Code Committee for a term, beginning September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2025.

Item B. I'm sorry.

Item C. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's reappointment of David Hudson to the Form-Based Code Committee for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2025.

Item D. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Tenesha Irvin to the Form-Based Code Committee for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2025.

Item E. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Sarah Brogdon to the Form-Based Code Committee for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2025.

Item F. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Thomas Palmer to the Form-Based Code Committee for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2025.

Item G. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Charles Young to the Board of Electrical Examiners for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2026.

Item H. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's reappointment of Ronald Pendergrass to the Board Of Electrical Examiners for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2026.

Item I.

A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's reappointment of James Walker to the Board Of Electrical Examiners for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2026.

Item J.

A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Brenda Jean Adamson to the Chattanooga Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2026.

Item K. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Matt Lyle to the Chattanooga Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2026.

Item L. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Nathan Bird to the Chattanooga Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2026.

Item M. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment of Vyomesh Desai to the Chattanooga Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission for a term beginning on September 1, 2022 and ending on August 31, 2026.

Item N. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment, jointly with Hamilton County Mayor Coppinger, of John Tucker to the Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board for a term ending on December 19, 2024.

Item O.

A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment, jointly with Hamilton County Mayor Coppinger, of Shea Cofer to the Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board for a term ending on August 17, 2026.

Item P. A resolution to confirm Mayor Kelly's appointment, jointly with Hamilton County Mayor Coppinger, of Sandra Koss to the Chattanooga Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board for a term ending on August 7, 2023.

- Thank you, Madame Clerk.

Councilwoman Hill, followed by Dr. Berz- - Thank you, Chair- - Followed by Councilwoman Noel (council chuckling) - All right.

Thank you, Chair.

- I'm watching it- On and off there, all right.

- I'm sorry.

- I just wanted to say that I am really excited about this slate of candidates for all of our boards and commissions and about the next slate that are coming next week.

We have a lot of work to do on boards and commissions, and I applaud the Kelly administration for its commitment to One Chattanooga.

And I'd love it tonight if anybody here is gonna be going onto a board.

If you're here, would you please stand?

I know somebody mentioned to me that one of my new colleagues on the Planning Commission, Brenda, Jean Adamson, is here tonight.

So if anybody would stand, I'd love just to give you a round of applause, if you don't mind.

(Councilwoman Hill gasps) Woo!

(council and audience applauds) (Councilwoman Hill laughs and applauds) Yeah, we're gonna have to have lots of long talks before and after Planning Commission.

It's a heavy lift, and it means a lot for all of these Chattanoogans to offer their time to serve our community.

So thank you, Chair, for that privilege.

- You wanna take a chance to make a motion on that?

(static zapping) - I would love to make a motion.

I move to approve.

- All right.

We do have a motion to approve, but have Dr. Berz next.

- I second.

I do have a second from Dr. Berz.

Councilwoman Noel?

- I just wanted to... (mic clicks) I just wanted to recognize Miss Adamson as well, but you beat me to the punch.

So thank you for willing to serve.

(mic booms) - Thank you for everybody willing to serve your community.

Being on boards and commissions...

Being on Planning Commission myself for five and a half years, I tell you, it's a real service to your community, and I applaud you, and thank everyone for doing it.

Thank you.

We have a motion to approve.

(plastic clicking) I do hear several seconds.

All in favor.

Say, "Ay,".

- Ay.

- Opposed.

I don't think so.

All right.

Appointments carry, thank you.

Madame Clerk, item R, please.

- A resolution to approve a $750 per person transition supplement to 48 employees affected by the conversion from weekly to biweekly payroll, for a total amount not to exceed $36,000.

(mic clicks) - Chair will entertain a motion.

Seeing- - Motion to approve.

- I have a motion to approve from Councilman Hester.

I do not hear a second for this motion.

The motion does not carry and fails for lack of a second.

We are now recognized persons wishing to address the council this evening.

- Good afternoon, I'm Steve West.

I live at (indistinct) Drive, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

I'ma pass a thing out for all of y'all.

And this thing that was in the EIG about the pay plan.

Years ago, I was on that thing to make the EIG.

For some reason, the city now or they misinterpreting what that says for their benefits.

And really, what I'm talking about is they're changing all of us to biweekly.

A lot of us, men and women, we get paid every week.

There's only 48 of us.

But when it came to us, they told us (paper flipping) they had to change us because it takes too much time.

How's it takes too much time for 48 people, when they got over 2000 that they still have to do?

So there's no way 48 people take that much time to make an adjustment to the pay thing.

Only thing we're asking now is, that right there, make that stand up because you changing our livelihood.

And they don't think it is, but I guess, if I made a hundred and something thousand dollars a year, I guess I wouldn't care about the ordinary person either.

So I'm just asking, if y'all have the power to let them to leave it like it is...

There's only 48 of us and you got...

I know at least about four people gonna retire this year.

And Miss Berz, you remember when Daisy Medicine came back here and asked for all this money for this new machine to make pay things better.

Y'all granted that.

This council granted it.

But now they want to change it all again, once again, just to hurt 48 people.

(door closing in the distance) When we have our bills and all this stuff set up, and I'm gonna just take myself for instance, got a new truck.

Now, I have to go and tell these people.

I gotta change it from every week to every two weeks, that's wrong.

It's a slap in the face to us, all 48 people.

And everyone of us 48 people got over 20 years here.

And we have gave our lives to this city.

And now, this administration wanna come in and just change it.

Just destroy our lives, tear our lives up.

(Steve's hand hits the podium) That's not fair to us.

So I'm just asking you all, if y'all can stop this to let them leave us 48 people alone 'cause every year it's dwindling down.

And if you go by the thing, what it used to be, it was over 400.

And look at where it's at now.

It's not gonna hurt to leave us at weekly pay (door closes in the distance) because a lot of us have our bills that way.

And yes, they gave us incentive.

And one of the incentives that y'all voted down tonight.

And we are fine with that, but at least let us stay where we at.

(digital bell rings) Thank you.

- Thank you, Mr. West.

- Good evening.

- Evening.

- My name is Stefan Tremble, and I'm one of the 48 affected with the city biweekly.

I feel that...

I've been here 26 years, and among all the 48, we've got over 1000 years.

We feel that if the dwindling down of the weekly pay for the people retiring would be an honest and good thing for the 48 people.

Y'all shot down the solution.

But we still have a problem.

(Stefan's hands shuffling on the podium) I'm not good at speaking, so... (Stefan laughs) bear with me.

- You're fine.

You're good.

- I have another solution.

Maybe.

They want us to go biweekly.

I feel that if they gave us the 80 hours that they are trying to take from us...

If they gave it to us and let everything roll over, then that would be a perfect solution.

But, we gotta work together on it.

(paper rustles in the distance) (Stefan's hands hit the podium) And that's about all I got to say about that.

- Thank you.

- Just think about it.

- Thank you.

- [Audience Member] Can I ask a question?

- Yes, ma'am.

Hit your light.

- Sir.

(mic booms) - Yes, ma'am.

- Just to confirm, that if they gave us the 80 hours... - Well, see, they... What they're planning to do is take 80 hours of our time, which some of us doesn't have to give.

They're taking 80 hours and applying it to, (door slamming in the background) basically, retirement time.

You don't get it back until you leave.

So we've been grandfathered in that time.

The 48 of us.

We've been grandfathered in that time.

Now, they're trying to take the grandfather cloth back from us.

(plastic clicking) We need our 80 hours.

- So you're saying that you're okay with getting paid every other week, if they give you back your 80 hours?

- If they advance us the 80 hours - Uh huh - that they're trying to take.

I mean, (Stefan's hands hit the mic) I don't have 80 hours to just...

Okay, I've got to give, and a lot of us don't.

(mic crackling) - So I guess what I'm saying is- - I'm only speaking for myself, but- - Yeah, we had this discussion on some other issues before about various options.

- Yes ma'am.

- So you're okay with getting paid every other week so long as there's some sort of an option to make up the difference for you?

- Yes, ma'am.

I feel like- (Dr. Berz speaks over Steven) - I've got a great deal of respect for the work you've done.

I'm just asking.

- Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

- My feeling- - I just wanna make sure I understood.

Okay.

- I feel like that would be an option.

I mean, yes.

- Okay.

Thank you.

(mic crackles) - Thank you, Dr. Berz.

- Councilwoman Coonrod, I see your light is on, followed by- - Thank you, Chair.

- Madame Vice-Chair.

- To my understanding, we were told at the 3:30 agenda meeting that this was something already worked out with SEIU, that everybody was already in agreement about what was taking place with the pay changes.

What I'm hearing is people coming up saying they had no idea what was going on, so I guess the failed communication... On my end, I would love to see, just like we mitigated, and worked out, and allowed the police union, and get with all these other employee groups and employees.

And they came to the table and they worked it out.

So we should be able to offer that same opportunity with SEIU and our city employees cause police are city employees too, to talk about the decisions and work out an agreement that everybody agree on.

I just don't think that's right if we're being told that this took place, and those employees that's coming up here now saying they had no idea.

They received a piece of paper, and told they need to sign it.

And then, it go into effect.

That's not the way that we should be treating our employees because when our police, which are employees for the city, when they had a issue, (Councilwoman Coonrod chuckles) it was a whole different situation.

So that's the issue.

And I don't wanna feel like that I was lied to, just to try to get something passed from city council 'cause that ain't cool either.

If SEIU and our employees (audience members clapping) wasn't on agreement.

We shouldn't have been told that at all 'cause that's not cool.

- Madame Vice-Chair, I see your light.

- Yes.

I just saw that Steven had his hand up when, I think, Councilwoman Berz was asking about who came and gave them the information.

Are you gonna answer the question?

Or... (mic popping) Well, Steven- - I just be very clear about - Did you have anything else?

- something.

First off, the process was outlined for employees on August 22nd, with a deadline to turn in the paperwork on August 30th.

Now, we have been in extensive conversations with the SEIU about what would be sufficient.

And certainly, they did register their opposition to the pay switch and all.

And I think I've said that at the 3:30 meeting.

And in their perspective, they would prefer that we do not switch.

And I think I was quite clear about that.

- Mhm.

SEIU membership, and I think I'm fairly representing this here, did not like this change.

And I think the administration chose to do it anyway 'cause we think it's for the betterment of the city as a whole.

But I wanna be very clear that in addition to that, the effect on employees and, Brent, correct me if I'm wrong, had an opportunity to understand the depth of the change.

It was not just a piece of paper.

There was a sort of stepped-through process where we explained the rationale behind our decision, what options were going to be available, and there was a graphic that kind of walked folks through.

And then, there were further discussions, including up till Friday.

Again, I just want to be clear that, whilst there may be reasonable people that disagree with this decision, I don't want it to be misconstrued that simply a piece of paper showed up.

Brent, do you have anything to add to that?

- For the record, I'm the one that went and talked to the employees.

I went down to the Paul Cart building.

(Brent clearing their throat) We had two groups scheduled over two hours.

We met with all 48 employees and explained the change, including some graphics, the information that was needed for them to understand the change.

We also gave each employee a personalized sheet of paper that showed the choices to either just delay and get on the new pay cycle and how much they would get paid each week.

And then, which weekly checks would be skipped to get onto the biweekly cycle.

Or the option to advance PTO, which would mean that they would get paid out for PTO, which means they would get paid out for two weeks, more than what they would normally get paid if they just continued on weekly pay or took the delay and switched to biweekly.

We provided all the information.

We did encourage for them to speak to their pay clerk or supervisor if they had questions or needed to understand anything.

We provided walkthrough documents to the supervisors.

But we did meet on the 22nd, and we originally asked them to turn in the forms by that Friday, so they had the week.

Then, we delayed it to Monday.

Then, we delayed it to Tuesday.

And then, today, we delayed it to Wednesday to try to...

But Wednesday's kind of the deadline for us to stay on the schedule in order to get through a pay conversion by the end of the calendar year, which is when PTO resets.

That's the only clarification I would add.

- And I just wanna finally add one more point.

This administration has demonstrated, and this council has demonstrated, that we care very deeply about our employee base with a historic investment into the pay plan that saw some city employees getting as much of a 46% increase in their pay.

The average pay increase north of 13%.

That was the first year that this administration was in office.

And then, finally, we followed that up with a 3% cost of living adjustment.

We obviously care very deeply about this administration and not only...

This administration cares very deeply about its workforce.

And we think the SEIU has fantastic representation.

They fight very hard for every single issue, and I think they should.

That's what unions oughta do.

And I think that's what you're seeing tonight, is that a union is doing its job.

It's demonstrating its displeasure.

And we have a fundamental disagreement with them on a particular issue regarding some pay plan issues.

Or rather not pay plan, but the biweekly versus weekly pay.

And we're gonna agree to disagree on this particular issue.

But I just wanted to issue that clarification.

I'm sure Jason may step in and add some additional context or disagree with me on a number of issues.

I know that the SEIU membership and their stewards, who are very dedicated to their jobs and their union, will also have a disagreement with me on that.

But I wanted to be very clear about the administration's perspective on this.

(mic clicking) - Good evening.

(Audience member speaks indistinctly) I'm Jason Brown, and I'm the organizer for the city employees' union.

I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have about what's going on with the weekly to biweekly transition.

(Jason exhales) It's true, what Joda said, we do disagree.

We feel like the only people who were present during the creation of this EIG between the administration that's here now...

I think Brent may have been, but our people, they know what that language meant.

And it was intended to keep the people who were currently, at that time, being paid weekly to continue to be paid weekly until such time as attrition takes place.

The city disagrees with us on that interpretation, but we have folks who were at the table at the time that it was discussed.

And it seems clear to us, we did make an objection, initially, to that.

They said they disagree.

And we continued to have conversation about how we could make it happen with the least impact to employees, despite the fact that our simple request is that it just not happen.

And that's the easiest fix, from our perspective.

We did continue to have conversations about how we could make it happen.

Tonight, one of those ideas didn't make it past the council, which is fine.

But we do feel like that asking employees, who have given a lot of their lives to the city, and who, given a few years from now, probably, the list will be less than half of what it is now, seems unreasonable to us.

And I don't think it's asking too much for you to consider not making that change.

And we will continue to have dialogue with the city.

We do support Mayor Kelly and his agenda, for the most part.

I'm not here to re-litigate the raises that were given to us.

I think we've said thank you a lot, and we mean it, to both the Council and the Mayor.

But this is another issue that just requires our attention.

I'll be glad to answer questions if you have 'em for me.

- Madame Vice-Chair.

(mic pops) - Actually, my question is for Joda, please.

(Steven clearing throat) - Okay.

Just real quick.

- Yes, Madame Vice-Chair.

- I know we went over this at 3:30, and I believe you just mentioned some of it now, along with Brent.

But as far as the reasoning for this, could you just state, again, what the reasoning for it is?

And is this purely out of just convenience for the city or what is the reason?

- Yeah.

It's primarily two things.

One is that it does... We've got 48 employees who really take the same amount of time to process payroll.

And I know that sounds crazy, but it does 'cause you've gotta go through the same process to run that payroll for 48 folks as you do for 2,500.

And whenever our payroll staff are on every week processing a payroll, that significantly reduces their capacity to go and respond to problems that happened in the previous payroll, and there are always inevitably problems.

By switching over to a biweekly schedule for everybody, that gives an on-off schedule, where our payroll staff is processing payroll one week, and then fixing problems the next.

We just do not currently have that capacity right now due to a weekly payroll.

And then, the second piece is that from a custom- Well, that really gets to it, right?

It takes up more time for our city payroll staff to run a payroll.

As much time as it does for the rest of the city.

And then, second, to free up more of that time for going and providing better customer service for our employees, frankly.

Brent, did I miss anything?

I think those are the two primary reasons we're making this change.

And this was a change that this administration did not identify.

Or this is not an original issue that we've identified.

This goes back to the Littlefield administration, where they have been trying to make this change for some time.

And there were some employees who were grandfathered into the process and kept their weekly pay.

But ultimately, we would like to complete the change because it would be a significant improvement for the city.

- All right, thank you.

- I think I had maybe 30 seconds left.

I'd just like to say- - I'm sorry.

- one final thing.

- Mhm.

- about the outreach to employees.

(mic crackling) It's true, Brent met with a group of folks affected by this.

I don't think our members and employees left with a good understanding of what their options were.

And I know, for a fact, that the ones I talked to today still don't have a good understanding of what their options are.

And to be frank, a couple of the options that we discussed may have even occurred after that initial conversation.

We're asking for education, outreach, but simply, we'd like you to not do it.

Thanks.

(digital bell ringing) - Chair.

- Yes, ma'am.

- Could I get some clarity from the city attorney?

What's the authority that we have, for city council, regarding administration (Councilwoman Coonrod speaking indistinctly) It clearly outlines and says that, unless they're being given a promotion... Reading here, it says administration got the authority to own houses, (paper flipping) I'm not going to change it.

Unless, it's been a little updated.

Can you give us your opinion?

(electrical whirring) - Mr. City Attorney?

- Well, I guess it is an interpretation of the, I guess, Employee Guide that you have here.

That has been adopted by resolution by the City Council in connection with this matter, most recently adopted in 2019.

And that language controls regarding this matter, unless there is something else that this body does.

That is your action that you took regarding the resolution.

If there's a dispute that arises in connection with this matter, it's based upon what you have adopted in your resolution.

(upbeat music) - [Narrator 1] You've been watching highlights of- - [Chair] That answer question?

- The Chattanooga City Council Meeting - [Chair] Councilwoman?

- A production of WTCI PBS (mic clicking) (upbeat music fades out) (calm music) - [Narrator 2] Get on-demand access to even more of the shows you love with WTCI Passport, an exclusive benefit for members of WTCI PBS.

Watch your favorite shows in Passport on the PBS Video app.

Download it today!