All right. I would like
to recognize our chaplain
of the day, Pastor Steve Young
of Ardmore Terrace Baptist
Church. If you will please come
to the podium and lead us
in prayer. Is he here
at this time? Yeah. Okay,
great. Thank you. Thank you,
Chairwoman. Thank you
to the Councilmembers. Let us
go to the Lord in prayer. O
Lord, our Lord, how excellent
is your name
in all the earth. We bow
before your presence. We come
to you this afternoon as humbly
as we know how,
acknowledging that you are the
Alpha and the Omega. You are
the beginning and,
and the ending. You are the
first and the last. Everything
that is was made
by you and made for you, and
without you nothing was made
that was made. You are God.
With that in mind, dear
Father, we are reminded that
you are the originator
of human government,
legislative order,
legislative law and justice, we
recognize the fearsome
responsibility shouldered
by these, your ministers
in the earth, these appointed
men and women who make up this
august body. We affirm that
they are here in service by
your divine decree and your
sovereign will.
For we bear witness according
to your holy word that states,
let every soul be subject
unto the higher powers,
for there is no power but of
God. Powers that be are
ordained of God. So Father,
in light of this, we ask you to
bless these your servants and
your ministers. Bless them
with wisdom, knowledge,
insight, discernment,
and understanding. May these,
your legislators,
be emboldened to stand
for right, truth, and justice.
May they bring
by their legislation joy to the
righteous and strike terror
to the evildoers. May they,
by their good laws, convict the
guilty and protect the
innocent. May they,
by their just ordinances,
overthrow the wicked and
strengthen the decent. And when
it is all over,
from this deliberative body,
may justice roll down
like a river and righteousness
like a never-failing stream.
Sin is a reproach
to any people, but
righteousness exalts a nation,
a state, and even a city. And
after these Councilmembers
joyfully and faithfully
discharge their duty,
grant them the grace
to have done it
without bribe,
without deceit,
without inducement,
without an unbalanced scale,
far from evil and temptation.
May they hear, O Lord, well
done, servant, well done. We
ask these blessings
in the powerful,
in the perfect, preeminent,
primal, and prodigious name
of the Lord Jesus Christ. And
we all say amen. Amen. Please
remain standing for the Pledge
of Allegiance. I pledge
allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and
to the republic
for which it stands,
one nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice
for all. Thank you. You may be
seated. Thank you
for that beautiful prayer.
Councilwoman Dr.
Easter-Thomas, you are
recognized at this time. Thank
you, Chair, and,
and good evening to the city
of Memphis who's joined us
today. I just want
to say thank you to Pastor
Steve Young and First Lady
Tammy Young
for joining us today, and just
to read this into the record
Be it hereby known that
Pastor Steve Young,
in recognition of a life
of exemplary qualities,
outstanding service
to the city,
meritorious involvement
in humanitarian affairs,
and demonstrated concern
for governmental process,
has been appointed Chaplain
of the Day of the Memphis
City Council and is hereby
entitled to all
of the honors, rights,
privileges,
and prerogatives appertaining
to the office and to display
of this certificate given
under this seal, 21st day of
July, Jana Swearengen-
Washington, Chair, and myself,
Michalyn Easter-Thomas. Thank
you. And again, this is
Pastor Steve Young from
Ardmore Terrace Baptist Church
in Frayser
in the lovely District 7. So we
are so glad to have you here
with us today. Thank you. So
we're going
to get up a little picture too.
Thank you, Chair.
We would like to acknowledge
that we have former Chair Kemp
Conrad in the back. Councilman,
we're so glad to have you. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call the roll. Thank you.
Council members Canale,
Carlisle, Cooper-Sutton,
Easter-Thomas, Ford, Green,
Logan, Smiley, Spinosa,
Walker, Warren, White.
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington?
Present. Thank you. I believe
Ford Canale has read the
minutes. We didn't do anything.
What we going to do? Thank you,
Madam Chair. I have reviewed
the meeting minutes from the
July 7th, 2026 meeting,
find them to be in order,
and I move
for their adoption. All right,
it has been moved by
Councilman Ford Canale,
seconded by Councilwoman
Green. Madam Comptroller, if
you will please prepare the
screen for the vote.
Councilmember Carlisle did not
vote. Easter-Thomas, yes. Ford,
yes. Green, yes. Smiley, yes.
Spinosa, yes. Walker, yes.
Warren, yes. White, yes.
Chairwoman, would you like
to vote on the minutes? My
screen is not, yes,
we are having some
difficulties,
but I'm moving forward. Thank
you. The minutes did pass,
ma'am. All right,
that item passes. Welcome
to the July 21st, 2026 regular
meeting of the Memphis City
Council. Meetings of the
council shall be conducted
in an orderly manner to ensure
that the public has the full
opportunity to be heard and the
deliberate process
of the council is retained
at all times. Our council staff
member has meeting agendas
available up front,
as well as comment request
cards for members
of the public wishing
to be heard
on that specific item.
Brianna, would you raise your
hand so they can know who you
are? Thank you. All those
wishing to speak
on an item must turn
in their comment card
to the staff
before the item is called. If
you are not here to speak
on a specific item,
you can note your request
to give general comments
at the end of the meeting. As
chair, I will recognize
citizens that properly
registered to speak by
submitting a completed comment
request card
to council staff. I would also
like
to ask that we hold a moment
of silence in memory
of the late Henry Hooper, who
was a devoted Memphian,
decorated veteran, and former
Memphis City Councilman who is
gone to be with the Lord. We
extend our deepest condolences
to his beautiful family, his
friends, and all the citizens
whose lives he touched.
Item number 15 has been held
until Tuesday, September 15th,
2026. Madam Comptroller, if you
will please call item number 1.
Item number 1 is a resolution
recognizing and honoring Le
Moyne Owen College
in celebration
of its 5th annual 807 Giving
Day. This resolution is
sponsored by the Memphis City
Council. Councilwoman White,
you are recognized
at this time. Thank you,
Madam Chairman. I am reading
this resolution on behalf
of the Memphis City Council,
and I'm going to brief be,
I'm going
to shorten if that's okay
with everyone. But whereas it
is fitting that the Memphis
City Council recognize and
honor institutions of higher
education and actually,
don't we have some,
a representative from Lemoyne
in here? Thought we did. Thank
you so much
for joining us today. Yes,
whereas, well, I want
to start over. Honor
institutions of higher
education whose longstanding
commitment
to academic excellence,
leadership development, and
community service has
positively impacted generations
of students,
students and strengthen the
city of Memphis. And whereas
the Memphis City Council has on
numerous occasions recognized
LeMoyne-Owen College
for its unwavering commitment
to providing a transformative
educational experience and
preparing students for lives
of leadership, scholarship,
service, and success. And
whereas established in 2021,
the annual 807 Giving Day was
created to honor the college's
historic address at 807
Walker Avenue. The name 807
serves as both a tribute to the
institution's rich history and
a meaningful reminder that
every gift, regardless
of size,
makes a lasting impact
on the lives of its students.
And whereas the week-long
celebration held
on the historic campus of
LeMoyne-Owen College includes
worship on Walker on Sunday,
the Magic Monday mixer
for alumni and friends,
and culminates
with the livestreamed 807
Giving Day telethon on
Friday, August 7th, 2026. Now
therefore be it resolved that
the Memphis City Council hereby
recognizes and honors
LeMoyne-Owen College
on the occasion of its 807
Giving Day. Thank you so much
for being here. We know how
important LeMoyne-Owen College
is to Memphis and our
community,
so thank you so much for being
here and us celebrating and
acknowledging 807 Giving Day,
August to 2026. Yes, thank you
so much, Dr. Nichols. Would you
like
to say a word? I simply want
to thank the City Council, all
the representatives. I would
like
to acknowledge our faculty,
who is also a councilwoman,
as well as all of you
for your support. On behalf
of President Davis, the
college, many of us are out
at a UNCF conference in
Atlanta, so I stand here
on the shoulders
of all that came
before me just
to say thank you. I say this
about my institution: that you
cannot get
to transformational leadership
in the city of Memphis,
in the county of Shelby, or the
state of Tennessee without
crossing the sacred grounds
of the LeMoyne-Owen College.
And by your support,
you not only help us
to continue this work, but you
ensure that your tax base is
secure because most
of the students from
LeMoyne-Owen College stay in
Memphis and Shelby County
to give back to their city. So
thank you
for your continued support.
Thank you so much. Please allow
us about 5 minutes to be able
to reprogram so that we can get
our screens up. Just give us a
few minutes. We need to get our.
Let me say,
you all have just been a perfect
audience. We will start
with our consent agenda items
3 and 4. Madam Comptroller, if
you will please call the
consent agenda items 3 and 4.
Thank you. Item number 3 is a
joint ordinance to amend the
Memphis and Shelby County
Unified Development Code
adopted by the City of Memphis
on August 10th, 2010, and by
Shelby County on August 9th,
2010, to establish a procedure
for replacing the zoning map.
Up for first reading,
this ordinance is sponsored
by the Division of Planning and
Development The case number is
ZTA-2602. The ordinance number
is 5979. Item number 4 is a
resolution approving
Supplemental Agreement Number
1 for South Memphis East
Holmes Road and accepting bond
as security. There is a request
for same-night minutes. The
contract number is CR-5471.
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, that
concludes your consent agenda
items. Councilman Spinosa,
you're recognized. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Without objection, I'd like
to hold or pull item number 3
off the consent agenda and we
need to read that
in committee. And
without objection, that's the
motion that I'm making. Okay,
can I get a second for that?
Second. All right,
it's been moved by Councilman
Spinosa and seconded by
Councilwoman Walker
to hold it. You're holding it?
Yeah, just hold it and bring it
back to committee
for an actual just first
reading for us. It has to do
with the zoning maps and the
changes,
and we've come this far. Just
want to be transparent
with it, and Director Ragsdale
agrees, so there's no
controversy or anything. Just
want to slow it down. I applaud
your transparency. Thank you so
much, Madam Chair. Thank you
all. All right, item number
4, Madam Controller. I did read
item number 4. How do we want
to see this approach now? All
right, I need a motion
for the consent agenda minus.
It has been moved by
Councilman Warren. I get a
second? Second by Ford
Canale. Madam Comptroller. All
right, council,
if you will please prepare
for the vote. We are voting
on item number 4. It's
in the system.
Canale, yes. Easter-Thomas,
yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes.
Spinosa, yes. Walker, yes.
Warren, yes. Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call the MLGW fiscal consent.
That would take us
to item number 5, a resolution
approving the increase
to contract number 12540
Master Paving Program Section
2 with Vukan LLC
to increase the current
contract in the funded amount
of $1 million. Item number 6 is
a resolution approving the
increase to contract number
12512, Master Paving Program
Sections 1 and 3 with Lehman
Roberts Company
to increase the current
contract in the funded amount
of $5 million. Item number 7 is
a resolution awarding contract
number 12595, LNG storage tank
painting, to Viking Painting
LLC in the funded amount of
$3,167,560. There is a request
for same-night minutes
for this item number 7. Item
number 8 is a resolution
approving the ratification,
increase, and renewal
to contract number 12390,
Project Portfolio Management
Software Tool Acquisition
with Work Otter Inc.,
to ratify,
increase the contract amount,
and renew the current contract
in the funded amount of
$196,859.40. Item number 9 is a
resolution awarding contract
number 12638 North Service
Center Building 5 roof
replacement to B4 Ply Inc.
in the funded amount of
$558,242.30. And item number
10 is a resolution ratifying
the award of contract number
12654 Samsara Telematics to
Samsara Inc. In the funded
not-to-exceed amount of
$4,645,462.80. Madam Chair,
that concludes your MLGW fiscal
consent items. Councilwoman
Walker, you are recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The
committee met and there was a
favorable recommendation,
and I so move. All right. Move
it electronically. Move it
electronically. Councilwoman
Walker. It has been moved by
Councilwoman Walker, seconded
by Councilman Spinosa. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
prepare the screen
for the vote. Canale, yes..
Easter-Thomas, yes. Green.
Yes. Please show Council
Member Ford as voting yes
on this item. Spinosa, yes.
Walker, yes. Warren, yes.
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
go to the regular agenda and
call number, item number 11.
Item number 11 is an ordinance
to amend Chapter 25, Pension
and Retirement System of the
City of Memphis, Tennessee, up
for third and final reading.
Ordinance number 5974 is
sponsored
by the administration.
Councilwoman White, you're
recognized. Thank you, Chair
Chairwoman. The committee met
and recommended approval,
and I so move. All right,
it has been moved by
Councilwoman White. Can I get a
second? Second by Councilman
Spinosa. There are no council
in the queue to speak. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
prepare the screen
for the vote. Canale, yes.
Easter-Thomas, yes. Ford.
Yes. Green, yes. Spinosa.
Yes. Walker, yes. Warren.
Yes. White, yes. Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. Madam
Comptroller, please call item
number 12. Item number 12 is an
ordinance to amend City of
Memphis Code of Ordinances
Chapter 33 Article 3 and
corresponding Chapter 1328
to increase the sewer fees up
for third and final reading.
Ordinance number 5975 is
sponsored
by the administration.
Councilwoman White, you're
recognized. Thank you. The
committee met and recommended
approval, and I so move. It's
been moved by Councilwoman
White. Seconded by Councilman
Warren. There are no council
in the queue to speak. Madam
Comptroller, please prepare the
screen.
Canale, yes. Easter-Thomas.
Yes. Ford, yes. Smiley, yes.
Spinosa, yes. Walker, yes.
White, yes. Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. Madam
Comptroller, please call item
number 13. Item number 13 is a
referendum ordinance
to amend the charter of the
City of Memphis, same being
Chapter 11 of the Acts of
1879, as amended pursuant
to provisions of Article 9
of the Constitution of the
State of Tennessee Home Rule
Amendment so as to establish
lobbyist registration and
disclosure requirements and to
submit the proposed referendum
ordinance
to the qualified voters
of the City of Memphis at the
next state general election.
Up for 3rd and final reading,
Ordinance Number 5977 is
sponsored by Councilman
Carlisle. Councilwoman White,
you're recognized. Thank you,
Chairwoman. I need for you all
to check for me, but I believe
this is the one we ended kind
of on a probably not a resolved
note. And so,
I would just say that it came
down without recommendation.
Attorney Wade, can you give us
some clarification for item
number 13? I had a question.
Councilwoman Easter-Thomas,
you're
in the you're recognized. I,
I think
under the circumstances it
comes down
without a recommendation. And
I, the sponsor's not here,
so I can't really speak
to it. Councilman Smiley. I
just want to move to hold
until the sponsor can come
speak to it. I don't want
to spend all day on an issue
when the person who proposed it
is not here to talk
about the justification. So I
move to hold this matter.
Okay, can I get a second?
Until the next 2 council
meetings. When is that? Okay,
no, you can't. It has been
moved. What's the date? I need
to get a, give a specific,
just move it
to the next meeting. Move it.
You can't do that. Move it to
the next meeting and then we'll
see what happens. All right,
August 4th meeting. Been moved
by Councilman Smiley, seconded
by Councilman Spinosa,
for that item to be held
until the next council meeting.
Madam Comptroller, if you will
please call item number 14.
Item number 14 is a referendum
ordinance to amend the charter
of the City of Memphis, same
being Chapter 11 of the Acts
of 1879, as amended pursuant
to the provisions of Article
9, Section 9 of the
Constitution of the State of
Tennessee,
to authorize the creation
by ordinance of uniform
administrative procedures and
systems for disposition
of appeals that may affect the
employment status
of civil service employees. Up
for 3rd and final reading,
Ordinance Number 5978 is
sponsored by Councilman
Carlisle. Councilman Smiley,
you're recognized. I move
to hold this until August 4th
meeting. Let me speak
to this one. All right,
Attorney Wade. Originally there
was some blanket creation
of authority
for the council and the mayor
to create a system,
but I changed it to,
to make it be an
Administrative Procedures
Act, and I think it's compliant
with the law. I'm not sure how
it was handled
in the committee,
but I've signed off
on it if y'all want
to move it on. Move to hold on
to the August 4th meeting. All
right, got a motion to hold,
second by Councilwoman Green.
We will hold that item. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call item number 15. 15 is
going to be held too. All
right. All right.
We're going to move
to our add-ons starting
with item number 16. Madam
Controller, item number 16 is
an appointment, Art Davis,
Chief Financial Officer, and
there is a request
for same-night minutes
for this item. Okay.
Councilwoman White, you're
recognized. Thank you,
Chairwoman. The committee met
and recommended approval,
and I so move. It's been moved
by Councilwoman White, seconded
by Councilman Ford Canale.
Mr. Davis, would you like
to say something? Mr. Winton,
you might as well be making
your way down. Yes, sir. Art
Davis, interim CFO, City of
Memphis, 125 North Main. I just
want to say again, thank you
for the confidence that the
mayor has put in me and
for your confidence
in your vote. Support and the
recommendation
for the committee. And I also
want
to remind everyone what I said,
that my goal is
to bring transparency to the
Finance Division as well as
ensure that every public dollar
that is received
by the city is managed
in the best way possible. And I
will support this council, the
mayor, but most importantly,
the citizens of Memphis. Thank
you. All right,
there no council
in the queue. Madam
Comptroller, if you would
please prepare the screen.
Canale, yes. Easter-Thomas,
yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes.
Spinosa, yes. Walker, yes.
Warren, yes. White, yes.
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes.
Congratulations. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call item number 17. Item
number 17 is also an
appointment Chris Winton,
Chief Administrative Officer.
There is a request
for same-night minutes
for this item also. All right,
we would love to hear
from you. Thank you, Madam
Chair and Council. It is truly
my pleasure to be here
before you. As I've shared
before, after meeting with
individuals and constituents
across the city as well as the
leadership team here at City
Hall, one thing is clear:
There is a deep love for this
city and a deep commitment
to delivering more,
and I thank you
for the opportunity to be here
and request your approval so we
can get to work. There are no
council in the queue
to speak. Madam Comptroller, if
you will please prepare the
screen for the vote. It has
been moved by Councilman
Warren, seconded by
Councilman Spinosa. Canale,
yes. Easter-Thomas, yes.
Ford, yes. Green, yes.
Spinosa, yes. Walker, yes.
Warren, yes. White, yes.
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call item number 18. Item
number 18 is also,
congratulations. Item number
18 is also appointments
to the Airport Authority. We
have Belinda Anderson Pamela
Clary, Demar Roberts. There's
also a request
for same-night minutes
for item 18. Councilwoman
White, you're recognized. The
committee met and recommended
approval, and I so move. It has
been moved by Councilwoman
White, seconded by Councilman
Spinosa. I don't see Miss
Clary in the audience. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
prepare the screen
for the vote.
Canale, yes.
Easter-Thomas, yes. Green.
Yes. Smiley, yes. Spinosa.
Yes. Walker, yes. Warren.
Yes. White, yes. Please show
Councilmember Ford as voting
yes on this item, and
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call item number 19. Item
number 19 is a resolution to
accept and allocate surface
transportation block grant
funds in the amount of
$581,840 in grant funds
from the Tennessee Department
of Transportation for the
Memphis Airport Plow
Boulevard Access Road, Project
PW01109. District 3, Super
District 8. This resolution is
sponsored
by the administration. There is
a request
for same-night minutes.
Councilman Smiley, you are
recognized. Thank you, Madam
Chair. The committee may
recommend approval. I so move.
It has been moved by
Councilman Smiley, seconded
by Councilman Spinosa. There
are no Councilmembers
in the queue to speak. Madam
Comptroller, please prepare the
screen. Council, if you'll vote
at this time.
Canale, yes.
Easter, Thomas, yes. Ford,
yes. Green, yes. Spinosa,
yes. Walker, yes. Warren,
yes. White, yes. Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
Please show Councilmember
Smiley is voting yes
on this item. Tanzania. That
item passes. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call item number 20. Item
number 20 is a resolution
appointing MATTA's fiscal
trustee. All council districts.
This resolution is sponsored
by Councilman Ford, and there
is a request
for same-night minutes
for this item. Councilwoman
Green, you're in the queue.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted
to clarify again for the
listening public that this is
taking out Walter Person, who
was our CFO, and putting in
Art Davis, who is now our CFO.
It is not in any way approving
a contract because we don't do
contracting for any amount
in regards to any trustee. So
just so everybody's clear,
this is just putting
in one name for the other
because there's now been a
change in leadership. But we
don't make contracts or set
salaries. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Councilwoman
Green. Councilman Ford
Canale, you're recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The
committee met, recommended
approval, and I so move. All
right, it's been moved by
Councilman Ford Canale,
seconded by Councilman
Warren. Madam Comptroller, if
you will please prepare the
screen.
Canale, yes. Easter-Thomas,
yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes.
Spinosa, yes. Walker, yes.
Warren, yes. White, yes.
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
call item number 2. Item number
2 is an appeal of Romulus
Corporation and others,
Memphis Alcohol Commission,
matter T36342, filed pursuant
to 4-3 and 412. Of the City
of Memphis Code of Ordinances
required by ordinance. This was
held from March 24th. Okay,
just one second. Councilman
Ford Canale, you're recognized.
Do what? Yes, move it. Right.
Yeah, just move it
without a recommendation. All
right, thank you, Madam Chair.
Without recommendation,
I move it to the floor. All
right, it's been moved by
Councilman Ford Canale. Can I
get a second? And second by
Councilman Spinosa.
At this time, we're going
to give each side 15 minutes.
Would you like to start? Thank
you very much. If you'll put
15, yeah, he's already did.
Okay, thank you. Thank you very
much. My name is Robert
Spence, 65 Union Avenue, Suite
900, and I have the distinct
pleasure
of representing the appellants
in this appeal that is
before you today. It's
important that you understand
from the outset what we're
asking the City Council
to do. We're asking the City
Council to overrule the
Memphis Alcohol Commission
approval and find that Ethan
Edwards' application
to operate a liquor store at
870 South White Station Road
does not satisfy the proximity
distance requirement. That's
what we're asking the City
Council to do today
in this appeal. And the reason
that we're asking this City
Council to take that action is
for one simple,
straightforward reason. The
location of Mr. Edwards' liquor
store violates Ordinance
7-4-5A, and it falls
within the 1,500 feet proximity
requirement and is within
1,500 feet of Woodland
Presbyterian Church and
School. All
of you are familiar
with your own ordinance,
7-4-5-A, which provides the
proximity distance requirement
that I've talked about. It
requires any store selling
alcoholic beverages not be
located within 1,500 feet
from any church, school, park,
library, or the liquor store.
So, so that is, that is the
rule that is applied uniformly
with respect to all applicants
like Mr. Edwards who seek
to open a liquor store
in our community. Now, before
Mr. Edwards ever filed an
application, he engaged a
professional surveyor
to measure the distance
for him from his supposed
liquor store location. And what
we have been able
to demonstrate and get for you
are the communications that the
professional surveyor gave to
Mr. Edwards before he filed his
first application. On
September 5th, Pickering
surveyor Lynn Spencer told
Mr. Edwards, the store doesn't
meet the straight-line
measurements. Can you get a
variance? Can you get a
variance? And then there are
several other communications
between Mr. Edwards and, and
Miss Spencer which,
which basically say that, that
they, they know the rule. They
will not ask the city for any
clarification or explanation of
the rules because they don't
want to send up red flags
about this application. So it
is, it is clear that Before the
application was submitted,
about 2 weeks
after these communications,
Mr. Edwards was aware that his
proposed location did not meet
the proximity distance
requirement. A week
after these communications,
his own lawyer, Attorney Mark
Joe, told him,
I'm a little concerned
about the distance to Woodland
if you go south on White
Station and east on Park. His
lawyer further told him,
I do think you have to turn
down Park and finish 1,500 feet
east and west
from the center line and There
are a lot of things important
about this communication,
but one of the things that I,
that I want you to focus
on is that at the time
of this communication,
September 13th, 2024, there was
no dispute that the centerline
at issue
for a correct measurement was
White Station, was White
Station. There is some
individual named Gerald who is
only identified as Gerald who
instructed the professional
surveyor how
to perform the survey. And she
acquiesced to his request,
and we ended up with this.
This first,
the first survey submitted by
Mr. Edwards was fraudulent. He
knew it was fraudulent when he
submitted it. What is strange
is that the Alcohol Commission
didn't flag it as fraudulent
when he submitted it. Because
you, as you see
from this survey he submitted,
as opposed
to turning east and west on
Park, which is denoted
by the blue dashes, which is
required, He presented a survey
that kept straight on White
Station, and that's the yellow
line. But again, even
on this fraudulent survey that
Mr. Edwards submitted,
the center line is on White
Station Road because that is
where the liquor store fronts.
That is where the liquor
storefronts. Even though Mr.
Edwards submitted a fraudulent
survey to the Memphis Alcohol
Commission, for an,
some inexplicable reason, the
Memphis Alcohol Commission
approved it on September 20th,
2024, in a meeting that was
later determined by a court
of law as violating the Open
Meetings Act. So they have a
fraudulent survey, they conduct
a meeting that is violative
of the Open Meetings Act and
approve Mr. Edwards'
application. Well, same parties
that are gathered here today
went to court. In court, Mr.
Edwards added something
to his argument. What he added
was that, the proximity distance
ordinance that all
of you know is in effect,
that it did not apply to him,
that it did not apply to him.
And his response
to your complaint,
complaint filed
by the city council, because
of, of the position that Mr.
Edwards took was Edwards denies
the allegations contained
in paragraph 24 of the City
Council's cross-petition as
Section 4-5 of the Memphis
City Code of Ordinances was not
the governing law at the time
of the application. That was
obviously absurd. So
by this time,
we have a fraudulent survey.
We have a meeting that violates
the Open Meetings Act. We have
an absurd legal position in
court that the ordinance
doesn't apply to Mr. Edwards.
And then probably the most
embarrassing thing was that the
Memphis Alcohol Commission
crossed the mall, came
to court, and tried
to convince the Chancery Court
that the Open Meetings Act did
not apply to it. And
in a publicly filed pleading,
took the position that it was
not a governing body
within the meaning of the
Tennessee Open Meetings Act.
So we have all
of these aberrant behaviors,
fraudulent surveys, Open
Meetings Act violations. We're
not a governing body that is,
that is required to comply
with the Open Meetings Act.
All of these aberrant behaviors
are being litigated just a
stone's throw from here.
Well, to the chagrin of the
Alcohol Commission and Mr.
Edwards, the court did not buy
what they were selling,
and the court First,
with respect to the
cross-petition that this city
council was required to file
to defend the ordinance,
the distance proximity
ordinance, the judge ruled on
July 8th, 2025. It is the
court's opinion, order, and
declaration that the 1,500-foot
restriction from churches,
schools, parks,
libraries and other liquor
stores, for instance, the
1,500-foot restriction as
originally stated in Section
4-5 of the 1985 City Code is
still in full force and effect
and the governing law. A
proposition that, that,
that all
of us would have taken
for granted Mr. Edwards argued
in a court of law that this
ordinance didn't apply
to him,
and therefore he didn't have to
meet the 1,500-foot
restriction. Because remember,
at that time, the survey that
he submitted didn't turn down
Park. It didn't turn down
Park. Further, with respect
to the Memphis Alcohol
Commission, the court also
rejected its specious argument
that it was not a governing
body and that the Tennessee
Open Meetings Act did not apply
to it. The court ruled
Therefore, the court concludes
that CMAC, City of Memphis
Alcohol Commission, was
functioning as a governing body
on September 20th, 2024, when
it deliberated and made
decisions regarding Ethan
Edward and Grind Management
requests for a certificate
of compliance as part
of the application
for a liquor license
before the TABC and was
required
to hold the meeting subject
to the requirements of the
Act. Now, governing bodies know
that as a matter of course,
as a former city attorney,
it's an embarrassment
for the alcohol commission
to take the position
in a court of law that the
Tennessee Open Meetings Act
does not govern its
proceedings. And the court
issued that ruling on
September 2nd. 2025. And
because the Memphis Accol
Commission's conduct was so
aberrant, aberrant,
the court is monitoring the
Accol Commission and is
requiring that the Accol
Commission submit semiannual
reports on whether or not it is
complying with the Open
Meetings Act. So we have all of
these aberrant and strange
behaviors by Mr. Edwards,
by the Alcohol Commission,
prior to and leading up to
Mr. Edwards second application.
What is on the screen now are
surveys that were done
by other surveyors. Thank you
so much. Am I done? Yes, sir. I
used my, my 15 minutes? Yes,
sir. All right, well,
thank you. All right,
we will now have 15 minutes.
Excuse me, Judge, if you start
over. Okay, thank you. Give me
the sign when it's time.
Okay, I am retired Judge
Bernice Donald. My address is
6077 Primacy Parkway, Suite
200, and I am here this
afternoon with pride
to represent Grind
Management, owned by Ethan
Edwards. I have a prepared
presentation, but I want
to just address 2 quick things
because I'm senior now and I
need to correct a couple
of things. Mr. Spence accuses
my client of fraud, and I want
to absolutely and flatly rebut
that right here and now. Mr.
Edwards sought legal advice
after reviewing the, the Muni
Code, which at that time had
dropped any reference to 1,500
feet. It had some ellipses
there. And Mr. Spence and the
council went to Chancery Court
and they argued to Chancellor
Jenkins that that 1985
ordinance, even though there is
no facial reference to 1,500,
it's still there because the
ellipses preserved it. If you
went around this chamber right
now and asked people
in this audience,
what do the ellipses mean?
Most of them could tell you.
Mr. Edwards is not a lawyer,
and that's the reference which
Mr. Spence skews. On the
September 18th Open Meetings
Act agenda,
there was not a quorum. Mr.
Edwards didn't set that agenda,
but the Alcohol Commission
could not do its business
because they didn't have a
quorum, and Ms. Fullylove
announced to the audience We
don't have a quorum. We will
try
to canvass our members and find
out when we have a majority,
and then we will reconvene. If
you have something
on the agenda and you want
to be heard, let us know. Mr.
Edwards was there, heard that,
and he appeared by Zoom
on the 20th. Not anything that
he did. The Alcohol Commission
handled a number of items
at that time. Including voting
on his application. They voted
on the opening
of another liquor store, 321
South Main. The only person who
was challenged in Chancery
Court was Grind Management.
The other liquor store that was
approved on that agenda, the
court said everything is null
and void. Busters didn't go
in there and say, oh my God,
they're opening up,
it's null and void. That liquor
store opened 2 to 3 months
later without incident. What I
want to say to you now
before my 15 minutes are up,
this afternoon we are asking
this body, which sits not as a
legislative body
but as a quasi-judicial body,
meaning that you act as judges
without the formal rules but as
judges making judicial
decisions, and I want
to ask you
to dismiss this petition for 3
reasons. One, Buster's, D
Wine, and the Liquor Depot have
no legal standing to appear
before you and challenge this
application or challenge the
actions of the Alcohol
Commission. They have no injury
in fact or law. There is
nothing that they could do
before January 6th when this
was approved that they could
not do afterwards or now. They
have no cognizable injury.
Mr. Spence is a brilliant
lawyer. He is well esteemed,
but his esteem and his
brilliance cannot create legal
standing in a court of law or
before a quasi-judicial body.
The other thing is, as I said,
there is no injury in fact.
They cannot come in here,
even though they mention
Woodland Presbyterian, they
cannot invoke the jurisdiction
of Woodland Presbyterian church
or school in order
to get standing. They simply
have none. They are
non-parties,
and a non-party cannot come in
and challenge this application.
In the statute, it provides
for a right of appeal,
but that right of appeal is
for the applicant. Buster's,
D. Wine's, and the Liquor
Depot were not applicants.
There are people who come in
here every time you have a
meeting and seek to speak.
They fill out a card.
But that filling out a card and
speaking does not give them the
right to step into a court
of law and sue your action.
Mr. Spence argues a pseudo-good
government argument. The
Supreme Court has said that the
person who comes
in and gets standing to
challenge a petition must not
have a generalized right that
every other citizen would have.
They have
to have some special injury.
If you ask Mr. Spence, what is
the injury that Buster
suffered? The answer's got
to be none. What is the injury
that D. Wine suffered? None.
What is the injury that the
Wine Depot suffered? None.
This is a spurious and ongoing
campaign to keep Mr. Edwards
and Grind Management
from opening their store. I
want to quickly go through the
presentation now because I want
to show you a couple
of things. I want to talk
to you about investments in
Memphis. So why are we here?
We're here because Busters and
those other appellants do not
want lawful competition. They
do not want this man to open.
They want to try to bury him.
The station has been open for
5 months,
and if you today accede
to their request, what do you
get if you go back and overrule
the, the Alcohol Commission's
action, which was based
on substantial evidence. What
does that do for you? What does
it get? It gets nothing because
the Alcohol Commission did not
issue a final order. They only
made a recommendation to
Mayor Young. Mayor Young then
reviewed that recommendation
and sent it to the state. The
state of Tennessee is the
licensing authority and that
issued that license,
which gave Mr. Edwards a
property right
in that license. So if you,
if you today say, okay,
they didn't have authority,
what do you do then? Do you sue
Mayor Young in his official
capacity and ask him to revoke
or rescind his certificate
of compliance? A suit against
Mayor Young in his official
capacity is a suit
against the City of Memphis.
What does that get? Do you go
over to Chancery Court where
Mr., Mr. Hammond and Busters has
already filed an action
against Mr. Edwards. Do you
step into those shoes and try
to prosecute an action
against yourselves, the city
of Memphis, there? Or does
Memphis go to Davidson County
in Nashville and file an action
in chancery court
to try and strip him
of his license? I say no. This
is the station. You can see
it's alive and going. It's been
going now for about 5 months.
The Memphis Alcohol
Commission,
after a full hearing spanning
2 full days, found that
Grind's 2025 application
complied with all local state
laws and ordinances. The
Memphis mayor signed the
ordinance. The Tennessee
Alcoholic Beverage Commission
granted a license
after their own investigation.
So today you should reject this
appeal, dismiss it, and tell
Busters and, and their cohorts
to leave this man alone and let
him run his business and
contribute to the fabric
of this city. The survey,
this is what we presented
to the Alcohol Commission,
which is the only real survey
in the packet. This was done
by the Reed Survey. Greg
Markham, a licensed surveyor,
is here this afternoon. He
testified before the Alcohol
Commission. They questioned
him. That is the survey. You
see,
they told you what people said.
It doesn't matter what anybody
said. The only thing that
matters is the language in the
ordinance that this body
promulgated. And that,
that ordinance specifies 2
methodologies, one
for a small, maybe single
storefront,
and the other one that relates
to a commercial establishment
greater than 2 acres
with multi tenants on that.
That is the measurement that
the other people did not use.
One thing that Mr. Spence put
up there as a, as a,
as a survey is something by
Greg Williamson with the city
Williams, I believe,
and it says spatially,
this is not a survey.
For a survey,
see a professional surveyor.
So Greg Markham put
in the only real survey.
There's the language up there.
I know we don't have a lot
of time, so I'm not going
to go through that right now,
but if we have some rebuttal,
I'll come back. Keep going. So
the measurement methodology,
I want you to think about
Those of you who've gone to
Wolfchase, think about all
of a sudden Macy's being
transformed
into a liquor establishment.
So according to Mr. Spence, if
you wanted
to measure the distance from
Macy's to somewhere,
you would go out
to either the middle of
Highway 64 and begin your
measurement, or you would go
out to the middle of
Germantown Parkway and begin
that. That is ludicrous. Your
ordinance in your language says
that you start in the front
of the building and you,
you go along a public or
private street,
private street being defined
to be a private passageway
for vehicles. There are all
kinds of passageways, but this
one is a private passageway
for vehicles. And so that's
what Greg Markham did. He went
to the front of the,
the building and measured
from there, and he made the
appropriate turns And he
yielded a distance of 1,559.37
feet, which is
within the ordinance distance.
Just a couple
of other things that I want to,
want to tell you. I don't know
how much time I have,
but I want to tell you that
in the time,
the short time that Mr.
Edwards has been
in operation, He employs 26
full-time employees and 4
part-timers. 70%
of those employees are
from the city of Memphis. He
has yielded a payroll of
$700, pardon me, $661,596
to date. He estimates
by year's end it'll be
$788,000. He has spent more
than $213,000 with women and
minority business owners. He's
invested some $1.262 million
in facility upgrades
to get this station going. He
is
at this time estimating that
in 2027 he will,
will contribute some $730,255
in taxes. That's state, county,
and city. He is
about the business of making
this enterprise work. I know
I'm getting close to the end,
so let me just say this
to you. Mr. Edwards wakes up
every day mission-focused,
going to find
out what he can do to make his
business successful,
what he can do to improve,
what he can do to contribute
to the fabric of this city. He
has been pelted and whipsawed
and accused and maligned by
individuals who simply do not
want competition, which is what
this country is based on,
competition,
lawful competition. He spent
his life, his time, his talent,
his treasure. He's exhausted
his family trying to secure a
safe and prosperous business
that currently employs the
people that I've told you.
He's never sued Busters, D.
Wines, or Wine and Liquors.
He's been keeping his head
down building that business.
There is no case here. Tell
Busters and their colleagues
it's time to stop. It's time
to stop this man from draining
his resources trying
to further a lawsuit
to keep him out
of business. I want
to leave you with one story.
There's a story that many
of you have heard
about a sage who lived
in a community, Dr. Warren.
She was blind.
But she was wise. These boys,
these young boys who were full
of mischief, they decided that
they were going to trick her.
They said, we're going
to get a bird and we're going
to go to her and we're going
to say, woman, we have
in our hands a bird. We want
you to tell us whether the bird
is living or dead. And their
plan was if she said living,
they were going to close their
hands and crush it. If she said
dead, they were going to open
their hands and let it fly
away,
and she could hear the flapping
of the wings. And so they came
to her and they said,
we have a bird, Councilman
Walker. What, what,
tell us the status. And she
said, I don't know,
but the bird's fate is in your
hands. I don't know whether
Mr. Edwards will succeed or
fail in his business. I don't
know whether it will become one
of the leading liquor
establishments in this
community. I don't know that.
What I do know is that he
deserves the opportunity
to try, and his opportunity,
whatever that end may be,
his opportunity is
in your hands. Do not deny him
that opportunity. Because
someone is afraid
of competition. Thank you.
Thumbs up, thumbs down. We do
have one card, and then
Attorney Wade will get you
to give us some clarification.
Samuel Fogestine. I yield my
time, yield my comment. Thank
you. Okay. All right. All
right. Attorney Wade, if you
will offer some clarification,
please. I'll do my best. The,
the only issue, I mean,
this is the second appeal we've
had,
alcohol appeal we've had. One
of them was denied because the
Alcohol Commission determined
that they did not meet the
distance requirement. And we
heard the appeal, and I told
you then that the only issue
that you decide is whether or
not the application meets the
distance requirement. You've
heard a lot of arguments
about standing, noncompetitive,
how much people make. Those
arguments are irrelevant. The
ordinance provides that the
City Commission shall decide
the restriction. The City
Commission, when this ordinance
was adopted, was composed of 5
members, one
of whom was the mayor. That
provision, as far as I can
tell, has never been changed.
So ultimately you would have to
make the decision even though
the mayor has, and the
Alcohol Commission has decided
that it does or it doesn't.
The Alcohol Commission is an
administrative body. It does
not have the, the power to
write ordinances or make
legislative decisions. The
mayor is administrative or
executive. He doesn't either.
But I think what it requires is
concurrence of 2 parties
to make that decision.
On the issue
of standing, I looked at that
and that's not an issue. I
think that's a legal issue that
they can take up in court,
and I believe a court would
want to know what this body's
interpretation of its own
ordinance was and whether it
applied to this application. I
could argue that the alcohol
ordinance has a limit of 163
potential liquor stores
within the city. So
on its face, I think it's
anti-competitive because not
everybody can have a liquor
store. So I think Buster's
argument was that, well,
we've complied with the law,
they should comply
with the law. That's not
for y'all to decide. All you're
deciding is the literal
question
of whether it complies with
with Section 4-5,
the 1,500-foot.
Unfortunately, what I heard
tonight from both sides did not
present that precise issue
to you. I would have liked
to have seen more detail about
what the station has done and
what their position is
on that particular issue. How
have they configured their
property to be within the
1,500 feet? Does that fly?
Does it not fly? So you,
you haven't seen any of that.
You haven't seen any
of those facts. So I don't know
how I can give more clarity
unless somebody wants
to ask him
to provide specifics
on those two,
on that specific issue. That's
all we want to know. How is it
laid out? Show us how it meets
it. Argue why it doesn't. Y'all
make the decision one way or
the other. It's simple. It's
not hard. It's not into all
of what the history was. The
ordinance is the ordinance. It
is in effect,
and everybody has to comply
with it. So we need
to know why they think they do,
why they think they don't, and
you decide which side you
believe has made the case. So I
think you've got
to hear a little more
from them on though on that
particular issue. I don't want
to hear about how much money
and what a great guy and how
well he wakes up every day and
looks for looks for gold. We
need
to know those specific facts.
Those facts have no
personality. They are what they
are. They are hard, cold,
black and white. Let's hear
those. Make the decision up or
down. That's my recommendation.
Let's hear that. Can we do that
with 5 minutes on each side?
Can we do that in 5 minutes?
And then we'll hear
from the council. Okay,
Councilman, before he comes.
So before each
of you present echo what
Attorney Wade said,
but I also want
to know particularly because
Attorney Wade said,
how are you currently
complying, but I do want
to know was any alterations
made
after the initial application
to the Alcohol Commission. So
that's it for me,
but I look forward to hearing
the arguments because I'm
thoroughly enjoying this
masterclass of attorney work
today. I don't know what,
what order y'all want
to do it, but it may be that
you might want
to show what your situation is,
and I don't know,
however y'all want to agree
to do it, I don't care.
Councilman Warren, did you want
to say something? Do you think
that makes sense for y'all
to go first? Well, they speak.
Did you want
to say something? Go ahead. I
just have a question. There was
a guy named Gerald that was
mentioned a little bit earlier.
I don't know who he was. He was
mentioned by Councilman Spence
a couple times referring to
Gerald. And as I recall,
when we first heard
about this thing, it had,
we had like,
we hadn't updated our
ordinances for a while,
and we had like some 1980s
version that sort of omitted,
I guess, this 1500. And it's
almost
like that's what was presented
to the Alcohol Commission. So I
guess part of this is,
as we're sitting here,
I know we're supposed
to interpret the law,
but we're also judges. And
judges sort
of interpret the law based on
the situation when you're
there. So I just need
to know what our leeway is,
and I want to know who Gerald
is and what he said. Thank you
Councilman Green and Madam
Chair. I don't know who Gerald
is either. Can I speak to.
Councilor Warren, I think
whoever.
Councilor Warren,
regardless of who Gerald is,
that still doesn't have
anything to do with the 1,500
feet. Okay.
I go second. I go
second. I go second. Well, I
had a presentation that dealt
with this issue. I just didn't
get to get to it. So I thought
we had 20 minutes,
but anyway, I'm just,
are they ready or you ready
to vote? Yeah, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah, yeah.
Okay, Council, are we ready?
All right, Madam Controller, if
you'll put 5 minutes
on the screen and we're going
to go ahead and get started.
Oh, all right.
All right. Madam Chairman.
Okay, so the rules will be.
Okay.
each side will explain
factually what's, what's their
and what's not there. Okay,
period. And then based
on that,
you will make a decision. We
don't want opinions and expert
opinions and so
on and so forth. We want facts,
basically those 2 facts, what's
there and what's not there.
Attorney Spence, would you
like to begin? Yes. Madam
Comptroller, if you would
please put 5 minutes
on the screen. Tow down here.
All right,
as I understand the question
in the area of inquiry,
it concerns what's there now.
And my time ran out. This is my
next slide. All right, so
on this slide we can see what
Mr. Edwards submitted
with his second application.
And you can see that every
other survey measured
along those blue dots
from the front of the building
to the street
on which it fronts, which is
White Station, down White
Station to Park, turn on
White Station, and it is the
distance is less than 1,500
feet. Well, what Mr. Edwards
did in his new submission,
knowing that, that, that what
he submitted the first time had
been discovered, he then,
as opposed to measuring
from the front of the store
to the street
on which it fronts, he started
through the parking lot. And
measured through,
through his own parking lot
to try
to get more distance for, so
that he could meet the
proximity distance requirement.
And so that's what the
Memphis Alcohol Commission
approved,
and that is inconsistent
with the ordinance. That is
inconsistent
with the ordinance. So the
ordinance requires 1,500 feet
from the front entrance
to the street centerline,
the blue dot. That's what the
ordinance requires. That was,
that's what Mr. Edwards
submitted
in his first application.
That's what his attorney told
him it required. But
in his new application, he
ignored all that advice again
and ran or started his survey
by running it
through his parking lot, not
to the front of the street as
all the applications,
as all the surveys require,
but
through his own parking lot,
claiming that his parking lot
was a private drive,
was a private drive. And as
this council is well aware, and
a private street the UDC speaks
to what is a private street.
5.2.17, a private street must
be labeled on the final plat
and be assigned as such. You
have to have a lot and a block
number. That doesn't exist
here. The second requirement is
that it must be constructed to
equal or exceed the base
materials compaction and final
surfacing standards
for public streets as certified
by the city engineer. That
doesn't exist here. And
thirdly,
it must be owned and maintained
by property owners association.
Because the street doesn't
exist, nobody owns it. It's a
nonexistent street. So Mr.
Edwards' attempt to claim that
his own parking lot is a
private street where he can
measure between and
among parking spaces to try
to creep out more distance
in order to meet the proximity
distance requirement does not
work and violates your
ordinance. The final thing I'll
say If the methodology that
Mr. Edwards is relying
on is approved,
it won't just be approved
for him. It'll be approved
for every future individual
like Mr. Edwards who wants
to own a liquor store. They'll
be able to measure through
their own parking lot draw
lines
through their own parking lot
to create the 1,500-foot
distance requirement. Every
church, every school
in this community will be
at risk to being next door
to a liquor store. My 5 minutes
are up. Thank you. Thumbs up,
thumbs down, please. Madam
Comptroller, if you will please
put 5 minutes on the screen.
Yes. Good evening, Council.
Mark Jobe of Glankler Brown one
of the attorneys working for
Mr. Edwards. The opponents just
gave you a bunch
of definitions and references
to an ordinance that does not
control. This is not governed
by the UDC. The UDC is not the
controlling ordinance. As we
established in court, Section
4-5 of the 1985 Memphis City
Code is the controlling
ordinance. A private street is
defined in that ordinance. It
is defined as highlighted
above. It's a private
passageway for vehicles in a
multi-establishment commercial
area of at least 2 acres
in size. That is precisely what
we have here. White Station
Plaza is 4.953 acres. It's
zoned commercial mixed-use. It
hosts 3 tenants. Gold's Gym,
Mosa, and The Station. The
passageway serves all
of the tenants. It is not Mr.
Edwards' drive. It is not Mr.
Edwards' property. And the
point of commencement was
properly done
on the survey performed
by the Reeves firm. It's really
as simple as that. When you,
you take the point
of commencement in front
of the store
along the private passageway in
this multi-tenant commercial
center and then proceed not
in a straight line
along the centerline
from that point
of commencement out
to the public street,
not the private street,
and then
along the remaining centerlines
of streets and intersecting
streets. That was established
in court. We have followed the
ordinance to a T, word
by word, and outlined it
in our presentation. Not only
that, Buster's used this same
methodology,
the same private drive
methodology,
to open its second store in
Ridgeway Trace. The survey
included as part of that
application is attached. It
starts in the private drive,
the private passageway
for commercial, or for
Vehicular travel, travel in a
multi-establishment commercial
area out to Poplar and up and
down the street. This is not
novel. It is the methodology
they used. More so, Mr. Spence
warns
of liquor stores proliferating.
There's a cap on the number
of liquor stores, and frankly,
the citizens of Memphis should
be allowed
to follow the plain language
of the ordinance. Now, we went
through a long rigmarole
about that last year
with another application, but
this application follows the
ordinance exactly as it's
written. Not only that,
as part of the Buster's
submission in 2023
to open its second store,
they got an opinion letter
from Josh Whitehead, former
planning director,
who analyzes this same section.
In his opinion, he states,
and this was accepted
by the MAC and the mayor, The
1,500 feet of churches,
schools, parks, playgrounds, or
liquor libraries and other
liquor stores as measured along
the street or private parking
lot aisle
for shopping centers, 2-acre
areas, but it should be acres
from the midpoint
of the front facade of the
proposed liquor store that
faces the street
of the property line
of a church, school, park,
library, or playground. It's
the same methodology. It's not
new. And we are here defending
it. We went through, we got
through the court case, we
followed the ordinance exactly
as it's written, and here we
are again being challenged.
But again, we have evidence.
We've shown the MAC over 2 days
of hearings exactly how we
follow the ordinance,
and we've exhibited it
to you here today. Not only
that,
we've shown you how it was used
by the, quote, opposition in
their application just a few
years ago. Thank you. Thumbs
up, thumbs down. You have a
minute left. Did you want
to add anything? You don't want
to add anything, Judge Donald?
I, I think they're done,
Madam Chair. Okay. All right,
Councilwoman Green, you're
recognized. You're
in the queue. Thank you,
Chair. Attorney Wade so we've
gotten a citation of the Muni
Code and we've gotten a
citation of the definition
in the UDC. Can you speak
to the council about which is
the controlling law that we
should be looking at as we make
this factual determination? I
really don't know the answer
to that question.
To be honest,
I think it's that's a question,
ordinances, that is a question
of, of interpretation,
and I think that's something
for the court to determine.
The issue before you is solely
on 4-5 of the, the code
of ordinances,
of the ordinance. So that's my
question, is our ordinances
speak specifically
to the laws we want
to enforce. The UDC,
we've adopted it,
but it is more broad
in scope, right? No, I think it
controls your decisions as
well. I think you may use the
UDC as, I mean, sometimes as a
persuasive authority
for how you would interpret it,
but it's still your judgment as
to how you interpret 4-5. And I
will commend the parties that
they basically did what I
wanted them to do,
was crystallize the 2 positions
before you, whether 4-5
controls, or whether what the
applicant did in terms
of I don't want
to say anything derogatory, but
create a position that they
view as a private drive,
and the question is, Is it a
private drive or isn't it?
Right. And so that's why I'm
asking you
about the definition
of a private drive, because it
appears they are different
in the UDC and
in the ordinance. And so I
would like to know, when we're
making this determination of
fact as a quasi-judicial body,
we are only to be looking at
the ordinance because that is
what we are deciding
on today. Correct? That is
correct. Okay. And look, I
think we all are frustrated and
would love
for the alcohol commissioner to
be here so that we could have
some words with them,
because none
of us would be here having
to do this. But I just wanted
to make sure that as we're
looking at this, we're looking
at the right definition so that
we can make the determination
of fact based
on that definition. Yeah, I
think you are. But I think
you've raised an issue that I
have. I've been involved and
I've looked
at this thing hours and hours.
And my, I mean, it's basically
a land use restriction. And,
and I would suggest that we
look, look hard
at making it have to have a
special use permit and go
through the UTC where we have a
record. We don't have,
we have people with expertise
in making those kind
of recommendations to us rather
than an alcohol commissioner.
We're going to fix this
on the back end. Yeah, yeah,
I know. I understand. You're
preaching my language now.
Yeah, but right now it creates
a clear ambiguity. And I think
that's something a court would
have to do they would have
to reconcile the two to see if
they can stand together or
they're inconsistent. And I,
and I don't think that's,
that's something that you have
the authority to do. And our
job today is not to try
to figure out which is the more
controlling. Our job today is
to specifically look
at the ordinance, the language
in the ordinance,
and interpret it based
on that. Yes. Thank you. Thank
you, Councilwoman Green.
Councilman Smiley, and then
Dr. Warren, you're recognized.
All right, my question is
for council for Busters. I
think council for Edwards
brought up what I think is a
pretty good point. I want you
to talk specifically about how
do you rectify if it's true
Buster's doing something
similar in its second store.
Councilman Smiley, that
argument is a red herring.
Buster's application is
submitted to the Alcohol
Commission
to open up its second store,
is not before the council. So
to just lob some argument
without challenging the
distance requirement for
Buster's is erroneous
in a formal proceeding. So
at the outset,
it's a red herring argument.
But, but beyond that, the 2
locations are entirely
different. They're entirely
different. And so to try
to compare Buster East's
location with This location
that fronts on White Station
within 30 or 40 yards to
Buster's East that's back
in a shopping plaza,
they're just totally different.
And so it's difficult for me
to explain to you all the
differences that would be
applicable to the Buster's
East location, versus this
location when it has not been
formally challenged, it wasn't
before the council, and,
and if you measure around
Buster's East 1,500 feet,
there are no churches,
there are no schools,
there are no parks. So It's
just a difficult thing to do
without there being a formal
challenge for me
to respond to. Just a comment
off the cuff. I got a question
for, I got a question
for council for Edwards. What
I'm trying to,
was there an existing driveway
before, and was that driveway
being demolished so that the
the existing driveway is
in compliance? And if it was,
does it even matter? Okay, so
the way that I understand it is
opposing council's argument
that is that it's supposed
to go from the front door
of the store directly
to the street. And was it at
any point a different driveway,
or is it just a matter of the
surveyor drawing the line a
different way because I
believe, go ahead. After going
through the litigation,
modifications were made
to the site. Okay. If you think
back years ago when the crime
was rampant, everything was
going, and Bell's council can
speak to this, the northernmost
and southernmost curb cuts were
closed with Jersey barriers.
After the litigation and
in the fall before this
application was submitted, the
landlord modified his site and
with city approval,
proper city approval, all city
approvals, Memphis Fire
Department involvement,
they executed that plan. And
but here the nuance that Mr.
Spence speaks
of isn't anywhere
but the ordinance. The
differences are not defined
anywhere else
but the ordinance. These places
are not different. Ridgeway
Trace is not different than
White Station Plaza as it
relates to this ordinance. The
requirements are simple. You
measure
from a private passageway
for vehicles in a
multi-establishment commercial
area of more than 2 acres per
side. That is the same
qualification to Ridgeway
Trace. So you start there.
But yes,
modifications were made. And I
alluded to this. This is
in the record. If, if you are
building a building or doing
anything and you get a citation
from the city,
you have the right to comply.
You have a right to comply
with the ordinance. If you
pass,
if you fail your electrical
inspection, you don't tear the
building down. You comply
with the ordinance. You get it
right. And that's what we've
done. The ordinance says what
it says. So what did you do?
What did you do to comply
with the ordinance? It? Well,
there was multiple reasons,
and again, Bells can speak
to this if you'd like
to hear that, or his council.
The southernmost, well,
this wasn't really,
this was done
for fire compliance, is the
second entrance was permanently
shut except
for fire department use only.
And the northern curb cut was
closed And the center curb cut
was moved to align with the,
with the across-the-street
development and to better,
to better traffic flow,
if you will. I think my last
question, and I'm going to let
some other people ask a
question. In your opinion,
does the, what I believe
to be a modification after the
fact even matter if it's
in compliance now? No. Okay,
that's it for me. Thank you.
Councilman Warren. Thank you,
Madam Chair. And I think, we're
showing our legal expertise
here today
on the board. I'm just going
to come through as a simple
country family doctor here,
saying that looking at this,
it seems to me that we
shouldn't be here talking
about this. We need
to go ahead and think
about what smells right,
and we need to vote that way.
So thank you very much. Thank
you, Councilman. Councilwoman
White. I see that our council
is amused today. Well, first I
just want
to say thank both sides
for their presentations. And
you all ultimately really did
get me to, to really
understanding what was going
on. So, we appreciate the
background and the history and
those things, and thank you,
Attorney Wade,
for giving us guidance
on what our responsibility is
in kind
of narrowing the issue. So
after listening carefully
to both presentations,
I just want
to make sure that I got this.
So the appellant is arguing
that the measurement should be
from the door storefront, and
then the appellee is arguing
that the ordinance's own
definition gives,
gives the definition
of private street And that in
this instance that it applies
here because it's a
multi-establishment commercial
area with a private passageway
for vehicles, and that's where
the measurement should start.
And that the last survey,
which is the Reeves survey,
says that it's 1,539 square
feet. Is that right? The only
thing I would like
to correct, it's 1,559.37. I
would like to correct that the
appellant is the opposition
to the station. They appealed
the MAC's decision
of approval, right? The, okay,
right. Okay. All right. Very
good. Okay. All right. And so
the, the, what I want
to make clear though is, well,
I, I get it. The language in
the ordinance states private
drive. Okay, I got it. Sure.
Can I, can I, thank you,
Councilwoman White.
Councilman Spinosa. Thank you,
Madam Chair. So I'm going
to ask Attorney Wade. So after
reading all this last night,
I have been surprised today.
So safe
to say that the first attempt
to get a license was denied for
the reasons it was denied and
explained today, not
in compliance? With the foot,
the 1,500-foot rule, correct? I
think it was denied because the
approval was void for failure
to comply with the Open
Meetings Act, which meant that
they had to reapply because
that original one was not,
was not effective. Okay. And so
when they came
with the new one, they changed,
they modified the site As they
told you. And so my
understanding, again,
what we're voting
on today is, is it
in compliance today? Yes. And
just being honest here,
I thought one thing
before I got here today. So
what's at question is the
private drive, correct?
Correct. And what about this as
far as the private drive goes?
You go to the center line
of the street, typically you
would see a straight line
from that center line.
Correct? Yes. And now we've got
a swerve,
and that's how we're so close
to the 1,500-foot rule. He said
1,555. So what,
what we're voting on today is
the swerve line versus a
straight line? That's correct.
How many,
do we know how many swerve
lines we've, the alcohol,
I can't wait to talk
about the Alcohol Commission at
our next meeting and then not
talk about them.
But all right, so, so what's,
what's
before you tonight is a vote
to approve the appeal. If you
approve the appeal,
then you vote in favor of the
Romulus app. Yes, it's a yes to
vote. A no denies the appeal,
and that in favor of Grind
Management. A yes means you
approve the appeal and you've,
you're
against the crime management.
And no is do not overturn the
decision, right? Yeah. Okay.
And hey, for the record,
I want
to say I have relationships,
very close ones, on both sides
of this, so I'm not voting
against any individual today.
I'm trying
to interpret the law,
so I just want to say that
for the record. Dr. Warren, I
was ready to call
for the vote. Yes, ma'am. I
just have one question. I have
relationships with both and
like both. I feel the same way
you do, but I think we have
seen one other curved line
today. That's the only other, I
don't know how many alcohol has
to deal with, but we did see
one other besides this one.
Judge Donald, did you want
to say something? Yeah, just
one quick thing. On behalf of
Mr. Edwards, I want
to thank you
for this opportunity,
but I do want
to make this point. Under
Tennessee law,
because I've heard the word up
here, ambiguity, if there is a
perceived ambiguity
in the ordinance,
that ambiguity must be resolved
in favor of the applicant and
against the municipality.
That's the law. And I've got
many cases I can give you.
City of Murfreesboro, Wright
versus City Hall. There are a
bunch of them, but I just want
to make that point. If, if you
perceive there is an ambiguity
then the ambiguity must be
resolved
against the government
in favor
of the property owner. Thank
you. Thank you, Judge.
Councilman Smiley, you
recognized, I do not want
to be a judge. Can I make one
final point? It's not,
how long? 30 seconds. I'm not
sure about brevity with you,
Attorney Spence,
but go ahead, then I'm going
to say it,
and then I think we're going
to call for the question. All
right. The ordinance says the
centerline of the public or
private street, then it defines
a private street as a
passageway. But, but then,
but we're not talking about the
most important language, on
which the liquor store fronts.
So public or private street is
attached to
on which it fronts. There's no
question in this case that this
liquor store fronts on White
Station. It doesn't front
on a private passageway. And so
when you read the ordinance as
a whole, it's clear. There's no
ambiguity. It's
on which it fronts. All right,
Councilman Smiley, we're going
to wrap it up. Can I call
for the question after this?
Yes. All right I'm going
to make a statement,
and I'm pretty sure it's going
to be litigated. Oh, I'm making
a statement. I just, when you
about to make a vote, you
should you should give people a
reason why. So here's my
position, and I'm going
to tell you how I'm going
to cast my vote. I believe,
after looking at the ordinance
and hearing the,
the excellent argument
by both councils, so kudos to
to both sides. I believe that
the way that Edwards addressed
the survey,
it violates the spirit
of the ordinance. However, I
don't think this council should
be in the business
of putting folks out
of business. I'm going
to vote no,
and that's my reason why. If
you'll please prepare the
screen. Oh, oh my goodness,
y'all, come
on now. I'm sorry, we, we can
vote, but I do want
to say this because, well, no,
because I just wish you had
just left well enough alone
because, tell me what to do.
Well, lawyers, so I, I know,
Attorney Wade, I will, but this
is what I will say. I just
didn't agree with the,
that it violated the spirit
of the law part,
because as I said here, it
seemed as if that it's a
commonly used methodology. And
then I think what's persuasive
is the ordinance itself that
says that a private,
from a private drive,
and it explains it such as
this, as a multi-establishment
commercial property. And so it
seems that the ordinance itself
actually describes a private
drive, and that that
measurement is what is used and
has been used
for that particular ordinance.
So for that reason,
I'll be voting the other way.
So you would still vote, you
tell me you can't leave well
enough alone and then make an
argument to, all right, thank
you, Councilmembers. Madam
Comptroller, I want
to stop giving us a bad name.
Thank you Councilmembers.
Please prepare the screen.
Canale, no. Easter-Thomas,
abstained. Ford, abstained.
Green, no. Smiley, no.
Spinosa, yes. Warren, no.
White, no. Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, no.
Please show Councilmember
Walker as voting no
on this item. Thank you very
much. All right, thank you.
That item failed. Okay, that
brings us
to our same-night minute items.
Councilman Canale, would you
please read the same-night
minute items into record?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Same
night minute items are 4, 7,
16, 17, 18, 19, and 20. And
with that, I move it
to the floor. Thank you. It's
been moved by Councilman
Canale and seconded by
Councilman Dr. Warren. Please
prepare your screens
for the voting.
Canale, yes. Easter-Thomas.
Yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes.
Smiley, yes. Walker, yes.
Warren, yes. White, yes.
Chairwoman
Swearengen-Washington, yes.
That item passes. That moves us
to our public comment cards.
First on the agenda is
Cynthia Bailey and then Lucy
Chambliss. Chambliss. Miss
Cynthia, Miss Lucy, and then
Corey Travis. Hello, good
evening to you all. Cynthia
Bailey, community advocate at
1095, you can't go ahead?
Yes, ma'am. Oh, Poplar Avenue.
I'm coming today. It's been a
lot of issues at Maddow, as you
all know, and myself, Mr.
Johnny, and Mr. Sammy, we came
in May and we have given you
all a list of things that been
happening and occurring
in that matter. The things that
supposedly been happening
haven't been happening. Now I
heard you all said that Mr.
Holm is doing a great job, and
it's okay if you all feel that
way, but we totally disagree.
We don't see no new buses that
you all said that's supposed
to be out. I think,
Council Lady White was
on the news or something
talking about a great job that
he's doing. Okay, that's fine,
but when you have the community
as a whole consistently and
constantly come
to us and complain every day,
it's not one day that I'm down
there that I hear complaints
consistently about the buses.
Transportation matters. Just
like police department matters,
just like education matters,
transportation matters. And
it's, to me now, I'm feeling
like when we come up here and
say these things, it's going
in one ear out the other one.
Because we out here,
and I promise
on an oath that I'm going
to do everything
in my power when I was
on the board,
and I'm continually doing it.
But we need support. We need
someone to speak up and speak
out about what the citizens are
coming saying. To you all.
Okay Council Lady Easter-
Thomas, you asked us in May
to give you a list,
and we gave you all a list
of things. We have not received
any feedback from nobody
about that list. Thank you.
Would you like to respond?
Miss Bailey, spot on. I did get
that list from you,
and we didn't receive any
response, so that's why I
didn't give you a response. I
just wanted
to make sure that that was
on your record too. Thank you,
Miss Lucy. Lucy Chambliss. I'm
a little thrown off. I don't
think I've ever seen that many
Republicans in this room.
Sorry. I'm ready. Yeah. 2 weeks
ago, I stood
before you and asked you
to do something.
At that time, 3 people had been
killed by the Memphis Unsafe
Task Force. Darren Pegram was
killed by DEA agent Levi
Blandon. Why was the DEA
serving a warrant that didn't
have anything to do
with drugs, though? When
Memphis police were
on the scene, why did we have
to have a federal task force,
federal agents carrying rifles
to confront a man at work? We
need to understand why that
happened. Jonah Neal was killed
by an HSI special agent. He was
suffering a mental health
crisis, and his family called
for crisis intervention. Why
was an HSI special agent sent?
We need answers
on that. I stood here
before you last time,
just a couple of days
after members of the National
Guard, the United States
military, gunned
down 20-year-old Tyron
Johnson. I asked who gave
consent for the military
to carry weapons and engage
in law enforcement activity.
Mayor Young made it sound like
they'd be picking up trash,
and Governor Lee said that they
wouldn't be armed or engaging
in law enforcement activities
unless requested
by local law enforcement. So
who made that call? The day
after I last stood here
before you, Alfonso Ivy was
shot and killed
by DEA agents. And again,
we have to ask,
why was the DEA involved?
At this point, 8 American
citizens have been killed by
these federal task forces
nationwide so far this year.
Half of these extrajudicial
killings have happened here
in Memphis. And the most we've
heard from this administration
is that they were unfortunate
incidents. I'm here asking not
only for the release
of a single video or answers to
the questions I've posed
tonight, but for full
transparency and accountability
to the public. Who is making
these calls that is making life
more difficult and less safe
for Memphis? And where is our
leadership? How has that seat
at the table served us? And is
it not time for us
to remove ourselves from a
table that never truly welcomed
us in the first place? Thank
you so much. Corey Travis and
then Wanecia Hyman. Corey
Travis isn't here. Okay,
Wanecia Hyman, she isn't here.
Claudia Hyman. Sammy Hunter.
Yes, my name is Sammy Hunter,
4211 Parkchester Avenue. I
co-chair the Memphis Bus
Rider Union since 2012.
Council, today I'm coming
to you simply
on some things that Ms.
Cynthia Bailey said. I'm
piggybacking on that. First
thing,
bus riders are still standing.
2 or 3 hours waiting on bus.
Even if they got trackers
on the phones, the buses are
still not showing up. The
second thing is that when Mr.
Holmes first got in,
there were 20 buses that were
approved by the board, which
Miss Cynthia Bailey was on. 20
buses supposed to be coming
from Kentucky. Mr. Holmes
stopped those buses
from coming. My thing is,
if he at least could let some
of those buses come
in we wouldn't be
in the shape that we're
in now. They say they got a bus
shortage going on. If he had
let some
of those buses come in,
we wouldn't be going
through what we're going
through now
with the bus riders standing
out here a long period
of time. Now the second thing,
he said 12 buses, new buses.
He wanted new buses. I can
understand that. He said 12
buses were expected in June.
That's what Mr. Holmes' word
was. Now we're going almost
going into August. We don't see
any buses yet. We haven't seen
anything. So I'm just saying
this is a mess. You can look
at it if you want to look
at it how you want to look
at it, but Memphis needs a
better transportation system
in Memphis. We need a better,
because when you go
to other cities,
that's what they say. What's
wrong
with y'all transportation
system down there? Well, I
don't want to come there
because I can't get around.
And you don't have the trolleys
to get me where I want
to get. I'm trying to visit
Memphis, but I can't come
because you don't have a better
transit system. So this is what
I've been
to other cities and I see this,
it makes me mad when I hear
this because I know we can do
better than this. We need
to do better in the city of
Memphis and we need people
on board to try to get this
transportation system better.
Thank you. You're absolutely
right. We appreciate your
comment. Councilman Ford.
Okay, let me get something
straight right now. Yes, sir.
With the buses. Yeah, we were
supposed
to have been getting some buses
from Kentucky,
but why get some from Kentucky
that's just
like the ones that we're trying
to get rid of? No, that's why
you stopped here. Now, if you
go and check your facts,
we've gotten 9 new buses in.
You're a liar. I am not a liar,
and please don't call me that.
He's not a liar. Please let me
talk, okay? And then you go get
your story straight,
and then you will know
about the buses that are here.
They coming by threes. We've
got 3, 6, 9. This week we
should get 3 more,
will be that 12.
Within the end of the year, we
will have some brand new more
buses. If you go out there,
they will be glad to show them
to you. I asked
for the councilman
to respond. This is not a
debate, and he is sharing some
information. Please continue,
councilman. I appreciate it,
but do not ever call me a liar
because I don't lie. I don't
have to lie. I'm too old
to lie, you know? But I don't
like nobody don't get facts.
We've been meeting
with the bus people, okay? But
y'all are not listening. Y'all
are listening
to the wrong people. But I know
as a fact how many buses have
come in, and they're coming
in that way. 3, 3, 3, and 3.
And you're, one thing that
you're correct is shortages
on trying to get buses.
But we're going to have 12
brand new ones, and by the end
of the year we're going to have
quite a few more brand new
buses,
not a used bus that's going
to break down. Then not only
that, the riders,
and you said people saying 3
hours,
I don't know where you're
coming from with that. That's
That's not true either, okay?
Unless you missed the bus and
then it wasn't supposed
to come until that time. If
you're supposed to be in there
at 7, you got there at , that
bus gone. So the next one may
come at a certain time, okay?
Only thing that we're having
right now,
and I'm having issues
with that right this minute,
and that's we hadn't even had
fast. You can ride the bus.
Free. How many cities ride the
bus free? Now, my wife is
from Mobile, Alabama. Now, you
go there, you're going to pay
quite a bit because that's
privately owned. And they don't
have brand new buses. It takes
time. We've been working
on this for quite a while.
But it's much, much better.
Okay? We had some, and it's our
fault that we had the wrong
people trying
to get it together. They kind
of disappointed us, but we're
on the right track right now.
Y'all was talking about
Attorney Holmes. He could be
doing something much better.
He don't have
to be helping us. This man is
doing a job to help the city,
okay? We're trying to keep him
as long as we can because he's
ready to go. He was supposed
to only been here 90 days.
This man changed things
within 30 days. We can't afford
this man,
but this man is just here
to try to help this city. He
can be gone today, tomorrow,
and everything else. What we
end up giving this man,
he'd make that in a few days.
He don't have to help us. He's
willing to help us and
to stay on,
but he could have been gone
in that 90 days.
But I need y'all
to get y'all's facts together.
Everybody's complaining, bus,
this, this, this. They even
complain about bus stops. He
built some, well, hey, if it's
raining, you can be
under something. Why complain?
Oh, you put it
in the wrong place.
Everything, you're not happy,
you know. But get your facts
together. I'm going
to be quiet, but please get
your facts together because,
hey,
that's what you're saying is
not true,
and I don't want the public
to see that, hey,
these things are not true,
because it's, it's happening.
Okay, thank you. Thank you,
Chair. And thank you
for your leadership. And we
know that MATTA was a disaster,
and we've had
to practically start
from scratch. I mean,
for real. So we're going
to continue to work because we
know we deserve a better
transit system,
and we will not rest
until it continues to improve.
In a lot of cities,
you can ride the bus 24 hours.
So we have a lot of work
to do, but we will not rest
until we continue to provide
the services that you all
deserve, that we deserve. Mr.
Ricky Lewis, and then Johnny
Mosley. After Johnny Mosley,
Andrew Guthrie, and then
Brianna Byrd. And that's it.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon.
My name is Ricky Lewis, and I
am still an advocate
of the ones that fired
at MLGW. And that Timothy
Davis been having contracts,
I'm sorry, I got you. He'll,
he'll help you
with that microphone. Just fix
that for you. There you go.
Yeah, Timothy Davis, VP from
Light Gas and Water. They are
really robbing the city of
Memphis Light Gas and Water.
With the contracts,
if I've said I gave you some,
some brochures or whatever,
and it says Ruth is 30 years,
she'd been knowing him 30
years. So if,
if a friend come and get $8
million or $5 million contract,
that is, is that a code
of ethics? If it was one
of you guys Channel 3, 5, 13,
CNN be investigating you guys.
So I feel they need
to be investigated. All
contracts from Davis, it need
to be, it needs
to be investigated. Ruby is the
contract lady. It's the VP,
senior VP of ECS partner,
and it was closed 2025. And now
they have a contract of
Hometown Hub. And Memphis
City, Memphis Light, Gas, and
Water has always trained our
own at Memphis. We never went
outside to get nobody. We
trained our own at Light,
Gas, and Water, and now we go
on to California, They're
getting people from California
or Texas or whatever. If CJ
Davis had fired them, this
chamber would have been crowded
every, every, every week.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Lewis. I would like
to encourage you to go to the
MLGW board member meeting and
share your sentiments. That
would be a great place
to speak to those individuals
who are making those decisions?
I have already. Okay, thank
you. Thank you. Mr. Johnny
Mosley and then Andrew
Guthrie. Johnny Mosley, 1150
Pelican Lane. When you are a
transit advocate,
you hear a lot. You even feel
the pain of bus riders. You
know what it's like
to be cursed out and
to be treated as a nobody. But
when you've been honored as a
living legend and recognized
by leadership organizations
for your leadership, Alpha
Phi Alpha fraternity, the
Deltas, and the state
legislature, you look back
with deep gratitude. You
remember why your late father,
a 50-year sanitation worker,
marched for dignity
in the struggle that brought
Dr. King to Memphis, Tennessee
in 1968. I'm grateful
to stand as a voice
for bus riders,
who feel that they are trapped
in a public transportation
system that is stripping them
of their dignity. I understand
what I just heard from the
City Council earlier and my
City Councilmember, Councilman
Ford, who I have nothing but
respect. I can only
respectfully ask that the
Transportation Committee
schedule a meeting to address
the problem facing bus riders.
The pain that bus riders are
facing, some
of the same pain that 1,300
sanitation workers and their
family faced in 1968. I can
only respect the fact and ask
this City Council to move
public comments earlier up so
bus riders be allowed to speak
for themselves and don't have
to worry about being stranded
downtown as I witness their
suffering. Standing
in the hot sun, over 100
degrees today, I'm reminded
of those dark days when
Memphis was called a decaying
backwater river town. If
Memphis is
to truly move forward to be
what someone called the shining
city on the hill,
then we all must turn
to each other rather than
on each other, regardless
of our differences,
of whether or not we agree
on what's going on today.
Thank you so much. Mr. Andrew
Guthrie and then Brianna
Bird. Good evening. I'm here
with concerns about the held
civil service referendum
ordinance put forward by
Councilmember Carlisle. I'm
sure you'll agree we need clear
communication between
politicians and the workers
of Memphis. Frankly, this
referendum is opaque,
concerning, and confusing.
Though I very much hope I'm
mistaken, it seems the
referendum would undermine the
very basis and existence
of civil service protections
in Memphis. That would be
disastrous for our city.
For months,
you all have been hearing from
our library workers how they
are desperate for basic civil
service protections. You wisely
decided to open a path
for them
to win those protections. It is
fortunate that you have more
time to consider this issue
because the public workers of
Memphis need answers. I ask
you, and I ask you
to ask yourselves,
would you want to take away the
basic autonomy that public
workers need
to do their jobs? Would you
want
to give politicians more power
over the working people of
Memphis? Do you want
to weaken or do away
with civil service protections?
And most importantly, will you
protect our public servants?
Thank you in advance
for trying
to be more transparent
with us, and please protect our
civil servants. Yes, sir.
Thank you so much
for coming down. Miss Brianna
Bird. Hey, Brianna Bird, 720
Lobe Street. Good afternoon,
Councilmembers. I'm also here
because I am concerned and a
little bit confused
about item 14 that was pushed
from this meeting, which I am
grateful that that was pushed
from today. I'm afraid that the
referendum could undermine the
protections that our government
workers need to do their jobs
because the foundation of good
government is independent and
nonpartisan civil servants.
Of course, last year Donald
Trump and Elon Musk showed how
dangerous it is when someone
creates new government entities
that can undermine civil
servants. I have to ask, would
this referendum create
something similar to Doge
in our city? I also want
to know,
what are the motivations
behind this referendum? Is
someone trying to do away with
civil service protections as
we've heard in the past? And
looking at the language
in the ordinance,
can you be clear about what
these uniform administrative
procedures or systems
for disposition
of appeals would be? Would
City Hall be undermining the
independence of the Civil
Service Board? These are just
some of the questions that
we've got and would
like some further clarification
on because we're a little
unsure about this. Yeah,
to close, please protect civil
service workers. And I
appreciate your time. Thanks.
Thank you for coming. We held
it because we wanted additional
clarification as well. I
appreciate that. Thank you.
Thank you. All right, that was
our last comment card. I will
entertain a motion
to adjourn. It has been moved
by Councilman Ford Canale. Can
I get a second? All right,
I got a second by
Councilwoman Green. Meeting
adjourned. Everyone have a safe
evening. Thank you, fabulous
staff.