City Council - Regular Meeting

I would like to recognize our chaplain of the day, Pastor Steve Young of Ardmore Terrace Baptist Church. If you would please come to the podium and lead us in prayer. Is he here at this time? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you to the council members. Let us go to the Lord in prayer. Oh, 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 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 evil doers. 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 council members 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.

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 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. Janice Warrington, Washington Chair, and myself, Michael Anissa Thomas, thank you. And again, this is Pastor Steve Young from Audemars Terrace Baptist Church in Fraser in the lovely District 7. So we are so glad to have you here with us today. Thank you.

I'm gonna get a picture too.

Thank you, Chair.

We would like to acknowledge that we have former Chair Kim 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, Spinoza, Walker, Warren, White, Chairwoman Swearengin-Washington,

Thank you. I believe Ford Canale has read the minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've 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, second by Councilwoman Green, Madam Comptroller, if you will please prepare the screen for the vote.

Council Member Carlisle did not vote. Easter Thomas, yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes. Smiley, yes. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. White, yes. Chair, why don't 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 upfront, as well as comment request cards for members of the public wishing to be heard on that specific item. Breonna, 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 has 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 one.

Item number one is a resolution recognizing and honoring Lemoine Owen College in celebration of his fifth 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, I'm going to shorten it, 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 a representative from Lemoyne on here?

I thought we did.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

Yes.

We're as, well, I wanna start over. Honor institutions of higher education whose longstanding commitment to academic excellence, leadership, development, and community service has positively impacted generations of students and strengthened the city of Memphis. And whereas the Memphis City Council has on numerous occasion 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 live-streamed 807 Giving Day Telethon on Friday, August 7, 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 7th 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 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 Le Moyne on 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 Le Morneau 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 five 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 three and four. Madam Comptroller, if you will please call the consent agenda, items three and four.

Thank you. Item number three 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 four is a resolution approving supplemental agreement number one for Southwell Memphis East Holmes Road and accepting bond as security. There is a request for same night minutes. The contract number is CR-5471. Chairwoman Swearengin-Washington, that concludes your consent agenda items.

Councilman Spinoza, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Without objection, I'd like to hold or pull item number three 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 Spinoza and second by Councilwoman Walker. To hold it, are you 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 wanna be transparent with it. And Director Ragsdale agrees, so there's no controversy or anything, just wanna slow it down.

I applaud your transparency.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Thank you all.

All right. Item number four, Madam Comptroller. 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 four. Missing the system.

Connelly, yes. Easter-Thomas, yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. Chairwoman Swearingen-Washington, yes.

That item passes. Madam Comptroller, if you will please call the MLGW fiscal consent.

That would take us to item number five, a resolution approving the increase to contract number 12540, Master Paving Program, section two with Vucon LLC, to increase the current contract in the funded amount of $1 million. Item number six 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 seven. Item number eight is a resolution approving the ratification increase and renewal to contract number 12390, Project Portfolio Management Software II 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 nine is a resolution awarding contract number 12638 North Service Center Building 5 roof replacement to B4 Plied 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, second by Councilman Spinoza. Madam Comptroller, if you will please prepare the screen for the vote.

Kennelly, yes. Easter Thomas, yes. Green, yes. Please show Councilmember Ford as voting yes on this item. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. Chairwoman Swearingen-Washington, yes.

That item passes. Madam Comptroller, if you will please go to the regular agenda and call 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, 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 Spinoza. There's 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. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. White, yes. Chairwoman Swearingen, 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 counsel in the queue to speak. Madam Comptroller, please prepare the screen.

Canale, yes. Easter, Thomas, yes. Ford, yes. Smiley, yes. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. White, yes. Chairwoman Swearengin, 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 third 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. So I would just say that it came down without recommendation.

Attorney Wade, can you give us some clarification for item number 13? Councilwoman Easter-Thomas, you're recognized.

I think under the circumstances, it comes down without a recommendation. And 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 two 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. You can't do that. Move it to the next meeting.

We'll move it to the next meeting in the end. We'll see what happens.

All right.

August 4th meeting.

It's been moved by Councilman Smiley, second by Councilman Spinoza 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 third 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 make it be an administrative procedures act, and I think it's compliant with the law. I'm not sure how it's handled in the committee, but I've signed off on it if y'all wanna move it on.

Move to hold until 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 gonna move to our add-ons, starting with item number 16. Madam Comptroller.

Thank you. Item number 16 is an appointment. Art Davis, Chief Financial Officer, and there is a request for same-night minutes for this item.

Okay. Okay. Councilwoman White, you're recognized.

Thank you, Chairwoman. The committee met and recommended approval and I still move.

It's been moved by Councilwoman White, second 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 are no council in the queue. Madam Comptroller, if you will please prepare the screen.

Kennelly, yes. Easter, Thomas, yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. White, yes. Chairwoman Swearengin-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.

Mayor 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.

Is there 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 Spinoza.

Kennelly, yes. Easter, Thomas, yes. Ford, yes. Green, yes. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. White, yes. Chairwoman Swearingen-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, Damar 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, second by Councilman Spinoza. I don't see Ms. 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. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. White, yes. Please show Councilmember Ford as voting yes on this item. And Chairwoman Swearengin-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 of the Committee. May I recommend approval? And I so move.

It has been moved by Councilman Smiley, seconded by Councilman Spinoza. There are no council members 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. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. White, yes. Chairwoman Swearengin, Washington, yes. Please show Council Member 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. Spinoza, yes. Walker, yes. Warren, yes. White, yes. Chairwoman Swearengin, Washington, yes.

That item passes. Madam Comptroller, if you will please call item number two.

Item number two is an appeal of Romulus Corporation and others, Memphis Alcohol Commission matter T36342, filed pursuant to 4-3 and 4-12 of the City of Memphis Code of Ordinances required by ordinance. This was held from March 24th. Okay.

Just one second. Councilman Horgan-Alley, you're recognized.

Do I?

Yes, move it.

Yeah, just move it without a recommendation.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair. Without recommendation, I move to the floor.

All right, it's been moved by Councilman Horgan-Alley. Can I get a second? And second by Councilman Spinoza. 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 minutes.

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 has been for 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 74-5A, 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 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 Ms. Spencer, which basically say that 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 clear that before the application was submitted, about two 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 Jobe, 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 want you to focus on is that at the time of this communication, September 13, 2024, there was no dispute that the center line at issue for a correct measurement was White Station, was White Station. There is some individual named Gerald, who was only identified as Gerald, who instructed the professional surveyor how to performed a survey. And she echoed to his request, and we ended up with this. 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 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 store fronts. Even though Mr. Edwards submitted a fraudulent survey to the Memphis Alcohol Commission for 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 validative 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 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 Act Hall 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 Meeting Act violations. We're not a governing body 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 1500 foot restriction from churches, schools, parks, libraries, and other liquor stores, parens the 1500 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 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 1500 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, and it deliberated and made decisions regarding Ethan, Edward, and Grand 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 2, 2025. And because the Memphis Act Hall Commission's conduct was so aberrant, aberrant, the court is monitoring the Act Hall Commission and is requiring that the Act Hall 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. Are you about 15 minutes? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. We will now have 15 minutes. Excuse me. You can 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 two quick things because, you know, 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 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 1500, it's still there because the ellipsis preserved it. If you went around this chamber right now and asked people in this audience, what do the ellipsis mean? Most of them, 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. Fulilove announced to the audience, we don't have a quorum. We will try to canvas 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 two to three 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 three reasons. One... Busters, DeWine, 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 mentioned 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. Busters, DeWines, 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's suffered? The answer's got to be none. What is the injury that DeWine 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. 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 five months. And if you today accede to their request, what do you get? If you go back and overrule 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 that issued that license, which gave Mr. Edwards a property right in that license. So 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 its official capacity is a suit against the city of Memphis. What does that get? Do you go over to Chancery Court where 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 five months. The Memphis Alcohol Commission, after a full hearing spanning two 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 their cohorts to lead this man along 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 Reeves 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 ordinance specifies two methodologies, one for a small, single storefront, and the other one that relates to a commercial establishment greater than two 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 survey is something by Greg Williamson with the city, Williams, I believe. And it says, facially, 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 have 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 Mesa 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 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 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 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 four part-times. 70% of those employees are from the city of Memphis. He has yielded a payroll of $661,596 to date. He estimates by years in, 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 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, de-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? 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 Fogerstein.

I yield my time, yield my comment. Thank you.

Okay, all right. All right, Attorney Wade, if you'll offer some clarification, please.

I'll do my best. 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 non-competitive, 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 five 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 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's administrative or executive, he doesn't either. But I think what it requires is concurrence of two 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 applies to this application. I could argue that 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 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 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 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 five minutes on each side? Can we do that in five minutes? And then we'll hear from the counselor. Okay, counselor, before he comes. Okay.

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 arguments because I'm thoroughly enjoying this masterclass of attorney work today.

You know, I don't know 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 how 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?

Before 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, you know, as I recall, you know, when we first heard about this thing, 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 is 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 where 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.

Thank you.

Council Warren, I think whoever, Council Warren, regardless of who Gerald is, that still doesn't have anything to do with the 1,500 feet.

Okay.

Okay.

I'll go second. I'll go second. I'll 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 go?

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, council, are we ready?

All right, Madam Comptroller, if you'll put five minutes on the screen, and we're going to go ahead and get started.

Okay, so the rules will be each side will explain factually what's there 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 two facts.

What's there and what's not there. Attorney Spence, would you like to begin?

Yes.

Madam Comptroller, if you would please put five minutes on the screen.

Hold on. 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 the distance is less than 1,500 feet. Well, what Mr. Edwards did in his new submission, knowing 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 his own parking lot to try to get more distance 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 center line, the blue dot. That's what the ordinance requires. 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. It has 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...

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, two acres, 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've evidenced, we've shown the MAC over two 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 Thomas?

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 you know i really don't know the answer to that question uh to be honest i think it's um

Do our ordinances? That is a question of interpretation, and I think that's something for the court to determine. The issue before you is solely on 4-5 of the court of ordinance.

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 two 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've used a private drive, and the question is, is it a private drive or is 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 commissioners 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, you know, 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 issue. And I would suggest that we look hard at making it have to have a special use permit and go through the UDC where we have a record. We have people with expertise in making those kind of recommendations to us rather than an alcohol commission.

We're going to fix this on the back end.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I understand. You're preaching my language now. 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 while they're inconsistent. And I don't think that's something that you have the authority.

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.

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 his 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 beyond that, the two 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 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 counsel's argument 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 and everything was going, and Bell's counsel can speak to this, the northernmost and southernmost curb cuts were closed with jersey barriers. after the litigation and then 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. But here, the nuance is, 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 pass away for vehicles in a multi-establishment commercial area of more than two acres per size. 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 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 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?

Well, there is multiple reasons. And again, Bells can speak to this if you'd like to hear that or his counsel. 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 across the street development and to better traffic flow, if you will.

I think my last question and I'm gonna let some other people ask some questions. In your opinion, does 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 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 a 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 measurements should start. And that the last survey, which is the Reeve survey, says that it's 1539 square feet. Is that right?

The only thing I would like to correct, it's 1559.37. I would like to correct that the appellant is the opposition to the station. They appealed the MAC's decision of approval. Right. Okay. Right. Okay.

All right. Very good. Okay. All right. And so what I want to make clear, though, is... Well, I get it. The language in the ordinance states private drive. Okay. I got it.

Thank you, Councilwoman White. Councilman Spinoza?

Thank you, Madam Chair. 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 1500 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 effective.

Okay.

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. Okay. 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. Do we know how many swerve lines? I can't wait to talk about the Alcohol Commission at our next meeting and then not talk about them.

All right, so 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 is in favor of a grind management. A yes means you approve the appeal and you're against the grind management.

And no is do not overturn the decision. Right. Yeah. Okay.

And 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 Mercer's Borough, Wright versus City Hall. There are a bunch of them, but I just wanted to make that point. If you perceive there is an ambiguity, then the ambiguity must be resolved against the government and in favor of the property owner. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Smiley, do you recognize?

I do not want to. How long?

30 seconds.

I'm not sure about brevity with you, Attorney Spence, but go ahead, and I'm going to say it, and then I think we're going to call for the question.

All right. The ordinance says the center line of the public or private street, and it defines a private street as a passageway. But then, 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 is 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.

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. about to make a vote, you should give people a reason why. So here's my position, and I'm gonna tell you how I'm gonna cast my vote. I believe, you know, after looking at the ordinance and hearing the excellent argument by both councils, so kudos 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 can vote, but I do want to say this. Because, well, no, because I just wish you had just lived well enough alone. Because... Tell me what to do.

Well... Lawyers.

So 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 tell me you can't leave well enough alone and then make an argument.

All right. Thank you, council members. Madam Comptroller, I want to stop giving us a bad name. Thank you, council members. Please prepare the screen.

Canale, no. Easter, Thomas abstained. Ford abstained. Green, no. Smiley, no. Spinoza, yes. Warren, no. White, no. Chairwoman Swearengin-Washington, no. Please show Councilmember Walker as voting no on this item.

All right, thank you. Okay, that brings us to our same-night-minute items. Councilman Connelly, 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 Connelly. and second 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 Swearengin-Washington, yes.

That item passes. That moves us to our public comment cards. First on the agenda is Cynthia Bailey and then Lucy Chambliss. Ms. Cynthia, Ms. Lucy, and then Corey, Travis.

Hello, good evening to you all. Cynthia Bailey, community advocate at 1095. You can go ahead. Yes, ma'am. Oh, Poplar Avenue. I'm coming today It's been a lot of issues at Matter, as you all know. And myself, Mr. Johnny, Mr. Sammy, we came in May, and we have given you all a list of things that have been happening and occurring at Matter. The things that supposedly have been happening haven't been happening. Now, I heard you all say that Mr. Holmes 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 complaint 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 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 promised 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 Easton-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?

Ms. Bailey, you're 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. Two weeks ago, I stood before you and asked you to do something. At that time, three 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 Ivey was shot and killed by DEA agents. And again, we have to ask, why was the DEA involved? At this point, eight American citizens have been killed by these federal task force 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 Wenecia Hyman.

Corey Travis isn't here, okay. Wenecia 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. Counsel, today I'm coming to you on some things that Ms. Cynthia Bailey said. I'm picking back on that. First thing, bus riders are still standing two or three hours waiting on bus. Even if they got trackers on the phone, 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 Ms. 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 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. You don't have the trotters 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 in 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 be getting some buses from Kentucky. But why get something from Kentucky just like the ones that we're trying to get rid of? No, that's why you stop here. Now, if you go and check your facts, we've got nine new buses in. I'm not a liar. 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 three, six, nine. This week, we should get three more, 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, baby.

I ask 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. You know, 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. Three, three, three, and three. And one thing that you're correct is shortages on trying to get buses. But we're going to have 12 brand new ones 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. People are saying three hours, I don't know where you're coming from with that. That's not true either. Okay? Unless you missed the bus and then you weren't supposed to come until that time. You know, if you're supposed to be in that 7, you got there at 7.15, 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 we hadn't even had fare. 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 gonna pay quite a bit because you know that's privately owned. And they don't have brand new buses. You know, it takes time. We've been working on this for quite a while, but it's much, much better. Okay, we had some, hey, and it's our fault that we had the wrong people trying to get it together. They kind of disappointed us, but we on 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 have 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. You know? What we end up giving this man, he may take it 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. You know, everybody's complaining, bus this, this, this. They even complain about bus stop. 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 private. Please get your facts together because, hey, 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 happening. Okay? Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

And thank you for your leadership. And we know that matter 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 Breonna Byrd. And that's it.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Rico Lewis, and I am the steel advocate of the ones that fired at MLGW. And that Timothy Davis been having contracts I'm sorry, I got you.

He'll help you with that microphone.

Just fix that for you. Very good. Yeah, Timothy Davis, VP from Light, Gas, and Water. They are really robbing the city of Memphis, Light, Gas, and Water. With the contracts, I gave you some brochures or whatever, and it says Ruth is 30 years. She's been knowing him 30 years. So if a friend come and get a $5 million contract, is that a code of ethics? If it was one of you guys, China 3, 5, 13, CNN be investigating you guys. So I feel they need to be investigated. All contracts from Davis, it needs to be investigated. Ruby is the contract lady, is 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, Memphis Light, Gas and Water has always train 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 by getting people from California or Texas or whatever. If C.J. Davis had fired them, this chamber would have been crowded every week. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis, I would like to encourage you to go to the MLGW board 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 Petticoat Lane. When you are a transit advocate, you hear a lot, you know, even feel the pain of a bus rider, 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 a leadership organization 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, march for dignity and the struggle that brought Dr. King to Memphis, Tennessee in 1868. 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 council member, 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 families faced in 1868. 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 witnessed 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 a 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 agreed 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. Ms. Breonna Byrd?

Hey, Breonna Byrd, 720 Loeb Street. Good afternoon, council members. 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.

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.