Chattanooga City Council members discussed a proposal to create a full-time council support position during a strategic planning meeting on July 1, 2025. Councilman Elliott presented a job description he said would combine research and policy development, project management for legislative initiatives and communications support, while avoiding duplication of constituent services that are handled by the mayor’s office.

Why it matters: Council members said additional research and project-management capacity could speed legislation and citywide initiatives, but several members warned about cost, oversight and potential overlap with existing staff. The council asked Elliott to refine the job description and noted there is money in the FY 2026 budget for research but not yet for a new, permanent position.

Elliott summarized the role as “a dual role focused on policy that is research and policy development, and it's also project management for legislative initiatives,” saying it would not replace constituent services managed by Mary Kelly’s office. He gave examples of tasks the position might take on, including standing up a beautification commission, helping with press releases and supporting council-hosted town halls.

Supporters said the council currently lacks dedicated research capacity. “Being able to have someone dedicated to do research…helping us write legislation,” Councilman Henderson said, endorsing the legislative component while recommending the title emphasize “council support” rather than “constituent support.” Councilman Clark likened the council to “a hospital with no nurses,” arguing for legislative capacity rather than operational service delivery.

Skeptics raised budget and management concerns. Councilman Harvey said he could not support creating a new position while other city departments face tight budgets and while the council is negotiating raises for police and fire. Several members urged a phased approach or proof of concept using the council’s current intern, Trinity, and suggested starting part time or with a contract. “I would just ask maybe if we look and lean into our new intern, see how that goes, and then reevaluate later,” Harvey said.

On compensation, members questioned the HR-recommended classification (GS‑21). Elliott said HR provided a range after benchmarking against similar municipalities and he could circulate the options; Henderson and others asked for a lower starting salary or a wider pay-range floor.

Council members also debated reporting and supervision. Because councilors are part-time, members asked who would manage a full-time hire and whether adding responsibilities to existing staff (for example, Melissa’s role) would be appropriate. Councilmembers asked for written comparisons of existing council support job descriptions and for metrics to track the new position’s value if hired.

Next steps: Council members instructed Elliott to continue refining the job description, report back with pay-range options and overlap analysis with existing council staff, and to bring a revised proposal to a future agenda for a potential vote. Chairwoman Hill said if members want the item on an upcoming agenda, “we can certainly do that” after the description is adjusted.

The discussion mixed direction and planning: there was no motion or formal vote during the meeting; councilmembers agreed to continue work on the proposal and to consider phased or proof-of-concept approaches before committing to a permanent hire.