City Council - Regular Meeting

SPEAKER: We have a work session agenda before us and there are a couple of items that we may want clarification on as well and one being the resolution that before us the denario of a package store alcohol licence. Very seldom we have a denario and it's important that we discuss the reasons why. So, Matt if you could come up and do that for us we would appreciate it. MATT: Good evening council members. So, tonight you have a resolution before you dealing with the denial of a package store at 510 Geneva Street. This has to do with the new changes to the CBD hemp regulations through the ABC board with the state. The applicant, excuse me, Top Shelf Alternatives has applied for a Class Two alcohol lounge liquor licence at 510 Geneva Street. Part of the requirements under the city code is that any licence dealing with alcohol be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. Section 7.3 of the zoning ordinance is our permitted use table. It says what uses are allowed in what zones. The property at 510 Geneva Street is in our gateway corridor zone which are our major quarters that run through the city. And I believe is approximately 2010 the City Council, prior City Council moved to make package stores a non-permitted use, a not permitted use within the gateway corridors citywide. So, there are a couple existing that have been there for some

time but since that time we have not permitted new package stores within our gateways. We get requests at times and before have asked the council or planning commission if they would like to change it. The general feedback from those times has been not to but because of that not being allowed through the zoning ordinance that led to our recommendation of not approving the business licence. Understanding that there are limited options for the business owner trying to do what they've been doing. SPEAKER: OK, thank you. Any questions to Mr. Morgan about this? SPEAKER: I have a question. So, the zoning ordinance for this, when did it go into effect? Well how long has it been when he was issued his original licence? So, what we're dealing with now is the fact that he has to have alcohol license in order to serve. MATT: Yes ma'am, it's well it's my understanding that there are a couple different ways that a CBD hemp store can operate under the ABC. One is that they can sell only a very few limited products that are CBD and hemp related products. That I think is is probably fairly difficult because that excludes a lot of use a lot of other products that would typically be sold and in a store that sold those. The other is that it can be licenced under a package store and serve sell liquor, CBD, and other products that are allowed under a package store which is a much more wider variety of products. Not everything but it allows quite a few more things. And so between those two either option is available but the option that I think makes more sense from the applicants perspective is to apply for the package store.

Unfortunately the package store itself is not allowed use in the zoning ordinance. To make it an allowed use we would have to go through an amendment of the text of the zoning ordinance to review that with a recommendation from Planning Commission to the City Council to make it either a conditional or allowed use at this location. SPEAKER: And how long was Top Shelf in business before the licence got pulled for? MATT: Not certain it's I'd have to defer to the applicant on how long is there. I believe it's a few years at least. SPEAKER: OK I was just trying to understand the background of how we issued from the beginning and then they were revoked or? MATT: Yes, ma'am, the big issue becomes because of last year the state legislature made changes to the laws regarding hemp CBD. Those went into effect after the first of the year and that led to the changes which they're now having to deal with. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Any other questions? Thank you Matt. MATT: Thank you. SPEAKER: And one other issue we're dealing with as well with fallen ordinances and that is to impose temporary moratorium for new residents and multiple occupancy products. I mean projects I'm sorry. Are there any questions to Mr. Mosley about this ordinance? Anything that we can clear up here before we get into our regular meeting? MATT: (INAUDIBLE) SPEAKER: And of course as we continue to look at our agenda

we can also discuss things that's on our consent agenda as well as our regular agenda that we you might have questions to some of the department heads to the where we can clear up also before our regular meeting. Mr. Mosley if you will I would ask maybe if you can come up and elaborate on some of the questions that may have been asked to you over the last two weeks. MOSLEY: Yes sir. So, over the last couple weeks I've spent quite a bit of time dealing with developers who have been working through the process of development of either single-family, multifamily, or townhouse duplex type lots or have larger planning and development PUD designations that have been currently approved or those that are we're working or trying to work through the process to get something approved prior to May 1st should the council approve a moratorium. Most of those specific questions have dealt around the a what is what does moratorium cover and then B how does it affect a particular project that we are working on? So largely, those questions have centred around talking to individual developers landowners about where their project may be in the process how the moratorium would affect

it and what they would need to do to maintain any exemption or approvals that they currently have and continue through the process. SPEAKER: Thank you. MOSLEY: Thank you. SPEAKER: Joey would you elaborate as well? Would you come and elaborate as well? JOEY: I don't have anything further to say about this. I was just going to mention that the owner, the applicant has a prepared statement he was going to read during citizens communications if you would like for him to come now. SPEAKER: Well we do have time. JOEY: Since we have time, yeah, we're leaning toward questions that maybe could be answered. SPEAKER: OK. Counselor, do you have an objection to this (INAUDIBLE) BRADLEY HADDEN: My name is Bradley Hadden. Kayla Hadden. I live at 1805 Archer Court. Good evening council members. I'm the owner of Top Shelf Alternatives located at 510 Geneva Street here in Opelika. I'm here tonight because of recent changes in Alabama law have placed my business in position that requires local action in order for us to comply and reopen. Last year the state legislature passed House Bill 445 which placed consumable hemp products under the authority of the ABC board. As of January 1st retailers like myself must now operate under a new licencing structure. Under the new rules we must either operate as a standalone hemp retailer which will require eliminating most if not or much if not most of our inventory or obtain a retail liquor licence and operate under package store requirements. In order to continue selling our lawful inventory we must obtain the package store licence and a consumable

hemp retailer licence. One is a prerequisite for the other. However because of how the property is currently zoned under the Gateway Corridor overlay we are not eligible for a package store licence at our current location. This zoning limitation exists before the state changed the law and it has placed us in a position we could have not anticipated when we opened our business. We are not asking to operate outside the law. We are trying to comply fully with the new law. We submitted our ABC paperwork on January 16th. The state requires that local governing bodies provide approval as part of the licencing process. Without that local approval our application cannot move forward. We have been closed since January 1st in order to comply with state law. That is now 48 days without revenue at an average of $1,500 a day. That is approximately $72,000 in lost gross revenue not including rent, payroll, insurance, utilities. We are absorbing these costs while waiting on a path forward. Tonight I respectfully ask the council to consider either amending the Gateway Corridor overlay or granting special circumstantial local approval so that we may apply for the required licence at our current location. This is not about extending alcohol sales. This is about allowing the existing Opelika small business to comply with the new state law and reopen legally. My wife and I live here. We employ local residents. We pay local tax. (SIGHS) Excuse me. We want to continue operating responsibly and transparently under oversight. I respectfully ask for guidance on what steps are required so that we can move forward and reopen as soon as possible.

SPEAKER: Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. As you can see this is very important to us and for our customers. We get called, emailed, text daily asking when can we open back up to help them. These are PTSD patients. These are cancer patients. These are people with anxiety. I mean these are things that are needed. You know that Western medicine people don't want to do that too much anymore. They just want natural products and we're just trying to help them. SPEAKER: The biggest thing is trying to absorb all these losses and continue to you know, we know there are still stores not here that used every day of the grace period that were still selling products way past January 1st. We are trying our best to be a beacon in this community to show people that we can do these this store these products in an adult respectable way and follow the lot the guidelines to the team and show people that this is what these stores can be, and, you know we're emotional because it's one hurdle after another after another after another. You know our licence has been waiting in limbo since you know the middle of January and it's the middle of February. I don't know how much longer we can stay open you know without folding under. I mean we still have employees that we're paying that they haven't worked in you know close to six weeks. It's not their fault that we're having to get this new licensing

process, and it's not anybody's fault that this is the hand we've been dealt and we're trying our best to make the best of that and unfortunately that's where we're at and that's why we're asking you guys to either amend or I don't know exactly what the technical terms are but either make an exception for us because we're seeking this licence to get to the next step which is the hemp license, which this is a prerequisite for. Is there any other questions you guys have for us? SPEAKER: Mr. President may I? SPEAKER: Yeah. SPEAKER: Bradley I appreciate you and your knowledge on all of this. Let me ask you if the zoning issue were resolved would you meet ABC's other requirements to operate legally? BRADLEY HADDEN: Correct. You have to have at least 500 square foot dedicated. You have to have at least $5,000 worth of alcohol on premise. You have to file your taxes separately each month which we already do. This is again. We have close to $30,000 in the inventory that we took off the shelves in January that we're just sitting on, and if we do the standalone THC hemp licence we can no longer eligible to sell so we're out $30,000 of that. And one day we're good the next day we're not. Like I said every other requirement to get to this point we've already sat down with ABC we're actually the first one in Lee County to have all our paperwork together. We've already had to pick up another surety bond we've already had to pick up liquor insurance just in order to apply for this. The only thing left is for it to go through regular municipality

sign off it goes back to ABC they send a lady out to take pictures of compliance and we're issued a licence. That's that. SPEAKER: I would like to recommend that you take your issue to the Planning Commission and they would in turn or look it over make a decision and then it will come back to us. We cannot do anything until I think you go through the Planning Commission. Am I right Matt? MATT: Yes, so the Planning Commission makes the recommendation to the City Council on any zoning action or amendment to the tax. In this case it would require both both amending the zoning and the tax here for the property and the first step is with them. Now I guess the question would be whether or not the council would support that if the Planning Commission sent back a positive or negative recommendation. SPEAKER: But it does start with you. MATT: It starts with the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. SPEAKER: Yeah and I mean I echo Mr. Routes. You know I'm sorry that you're in this situation and I appreciate you know the I appreciate you being proactive in your the actions that you have taken. I think it's obviously a very volatile segment you know business segment and there's just a lot of luck going on with it. I think you know in 2010 we made a decision that in the Gateway Corridor we don't want to have package stores and I think that is where we are. If you know the fact that they've put the regulation on the ABC board is interesting and but you know we're trying to follow the rules too. So, I mean we're in a place where we've got to follow

those so I think it goes back to the Planning Commission. And us deciding whether we want to open the door for package stores being in the Gateway Corridor and you know I think it would be very hard to just do something special for one person I think that that opens us up we set precedence for that and it'll be hard for us to say no to someone else. So, I think there's a bigger discussion you know to be had with this, and I do I'm sorry you're in this situation because obviously you got a business out there and then they had the rules changed and you had to pivot. So, but I do appreciate y'all being proactive with it. SPEAKER: Matt what would you need from us? MATT: So, we looked at a potential change to the package store requirements in the fall with Planning Commission at that time they were not ready to to move forward with those as as written. I don't know exactly how this particular property would go through but you know, ultimately, the decision does come back before this body to allow again both we're talking about a zoning change from the current C2 to C3 because it is there that is a possibility because there is C3 adjacent. But the bigger issue is whether or not the council would support or approve an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow package stores in the gateway corridors because there really isn't a way to approve one without approving the ability to seek them in the entire gateway corridor. SPEAKER: So, a lot of what we do there seems to be

you know oftentimes people caught in the middle right? MATT: Yes sir. SPEAKER: So, knowing that this is an existing business in the city of Opelika knowing that the state legislature has created new laws that shake things up and I mean you know now these stores are forced to sell liquor, how, without overall changing the ordinance to make liquor stores and package stores available—I mean, thoroughfares and on this overlay—is there room for a special recommendation for this specific one since they are caught in the middle? MATT: Not that I'm aware of so typically when we talk about a variance or a special consideration yes sir our ordinance our current ordinance does not allow what we call use variances which is where you allow a use in a specific zone where it is not currently allowed. Courts tend to look unfavourably on cities when they do that and so our ordinance since its inception has prevented those. You know the only other option again is to allow it with conditions throughout the entire city and see if the conditions would meet what they're proposing but again you would likely find other locations that have those some conditions. And frankly I mean it is something that comes up a few times a year where we do see gas stations and other uses that want to add a package store as well. So, I do believe if you make a change which and I understand the reasoning why you're making proposing a change potentially

proposing a change but it will likely lead to proliferation of package stores throughout the city. SPEAKER: Bradley if you don't mind SPEAKER: This morning I went through the amended, the new laws that the state legislature has passed. And there seems to be another option, and you and I have talked about this, with going just solely CBD and hemp-related products without the sale of alcohol. Knowing that if this wasn't able to happen, that more than likely your store would close, is that still an option for option two? I know what that entails. You and I have went over this, but I'd like to hear some more on it if you don't mind. SPEAKER: Option two would limit us to the sale of only a 10mm gummy, a 10mm seltzer in a four-pack, a two-pack, or a one-pack. That would take 98, I think it's 98.2%, of the SKUs that we sell off the table. So, you're now trying to pay employees, keep the lights on, buy product, everything else, with less than 2% of what you had. And just to be clear, now all existing liquor stores in the state, in the county, everywhere, can now apply for this THC licence and sell those as well. So, can Walmart, Kroger, anywhere that's 14,000 square foot or more that is a grocer.

That's 75% of their layout are groceries. So, you're, in essence, squeezing out this death by 1,000 cuts. You're squeezing out the mom and pop standalone stores to give more SKUs to the big corporations and less for us. It is an option, but as I've stated before, there's still not even an agenda. I'm not even, I can't even submit my THC licence to you guys because there's not anything on the books yet that allows me to do so. We can't, so I'm in the same boat either way. Again, we've had this licence ready since the end of the second week in January. And when I submitted it to the revenue department, the revenue department told me that's not an option. And I said, what do you mean it's not an option? She said, well, there's no box for me to check that allows me to send this to city council to be approved. I said, well, we've been knowing about this since basically November of last year. Where is that at? And nobody can give me answers. I sat down with Mr Motley and Mr Treese and everybody a couple weeks ago, and they're saying they're working on that still. But I haven't given an update on if, when, and how that's ever going to come about. I know, being the first one, I know people are hesitant because nobody wants to be sued. Nobody wants to make they have to make sure their T's are crossed, and I's are dotted. We've done so tenfold. And yet, we're still at the mercy of waiting because I don't know. There is an option for us to stay in business for how long, I don't know. But again, I'm still at a crossroads because that has to come before this same body to be signed off on

before it can go to the ABC board again to be approved. And so nobody can tell me when, if, and how that's going to happen. And we're in the middle of February already. So, I can't answer any more than that. SPEAKER: I appreciate it. Thanks so much, Bradley. SPEAKER: May I ask? SPEAKER: I understand that we're in the Gateway Corridor. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: I talked to you privately. You did tell me that you were under a two-year lease. SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. SPEAKER: Is the only hold up right now is that you're in the Gateway Corridor? SPEAKER: Right now, I don't know 100%. The only thing keeping our doors closed right now is not being able for the ABC board to give us our licence. And to do that, we either have to have a standalone THC licence be approved by you guys or a package store that is a prerequisite to then getting the THC licence, or CBD licence, hemp licence. If we were to move locations, you're talking $32.50 a month times two years to get out of that lease on top of what it's going to cost to, I mean, we're currently in a remodel at the store right now to be compliant by the time these licences come through. We're in $22,000 with a remodel right now to try to be compliant. So, it's no matter which way we turn, it's slowly bleeding money out until subsequently these stores go away, which, again, is my personal opinion. That's why the ABC was given this to begin with, because alcohol sales are down across the state for stores like mine.

And so we're going to make this so hard, arduous, and difficult that people just don't even try, or they're going to pay out the nose and slowly close. If you'll notice, there are 11 other stores here that sell these same products. And nobody else is going after this licence, because they took tail and ran, because this is their third, fourth, fifth business. This is everything I own. I put everything into this. This is all we have. SPEAKER: Thank you. SPEAKER: Thank you for all your participation. And we will now close this work session and begin our meeting in two minutes.

(BACKGROUND CONVERSATION). SPEAKER: It is now 6:01, and time for our regular council meeting to begin.

Call the roll, Mr Jones. SPEAKER: Mr Allen. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Mr Holmes. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Mr Walton. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Mr Bain. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: He's here somewhere. Mr Routledge. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Mr Cunningham. SPEAKER: Here. SPEAKER: Mr Bain. SPEAKER: Answer the roll, please. Say it. Here. (BACKGROUND CONVERSATION). SPEAKER: Thank you. It appears as if we have a full house tonight, so if you could take your seats quickly, we'll be appreciated.

Thank you. At this time, our invocation will be given to us by Marsha Corbin, and our pledge will be led by River Crow and Abby Finley from Morris Avenue Intermediate School. May you all stand. Let us bow our heads, please. SPEAKER: Dear Lord, we pray today for supernatural strength for our city leaders. We pray that you raise them up like Joshua so that they can be leaders that exemplify godly wisdom and description. We ask that you will help them to be strong and of good courage, and that they will observe to do according to all you have commanded them to do. Help them not to fear the decisions that they have to make because you are with them. Father God, we pray that they will not grow weary in well-doing. They will not grow weary, Father God, of those things that are good in your sight. Help them to make decisions that reflect integrity, compassion, promote growth, unity, and prosperity for all that reside within the communities. Encourage them to know that in due season, they will reap all things they strive for because their heart desires are a reflection of what is in yours. Heavenly Father, bless them with godly wisdom and their decision-making process so that our community will have economic prosperity, all local businesses will thrive, and there will be great job opportunities for all.

May our community be a place of abundance and generosity. We ask these things in your precious son named Jesus. Amen. SPEAKER: Amen. SPEAKER: I pledge. SPEAKER: 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. (BACKGROUND CONVERSATION). SPEAKER: The adoption of the agenda. Council members, are there any items that need to be added to, removed from, or changed to the order of our presented agenda? Having none, is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? SPEAKER: So, moved. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Any discussion? Having none, call the roll, Mr Jones. JONES: Ms Hall. HALL: Aye. JONES: Ms Watson. WATSON: Aye. JONES: Ms Green. GREEN: Aye. JONES: Mr Rapp. RAPP: Aye. JONES: Mr Raul. RAUL: Aye. JONES: All voted aye to adopt the agenda. SPEAKER: And council member, you will also receive a copy of the minutes from our last regular meeting on February the 3rd, 2026. Is there a motion for approval? SPEAKER: So, moved. SPEAKER: Is there a second? SPEAKER: Second. SPEAKER: Are there any correction, additions, or deletions? If not, the minutes will stand approved as presented.

Mayor Cummings, you've had an opportunity through what was in your packet to look over the city financial summary report for January 2026, and also January 2026 monthly billing report. If you have any questions, you can call Mr Motley or any of the mayor's administration to answer questions. Thank you very much. And at this time, we'll pass that. Council member Holmes will come down with the committee. At this time, we own the... At this time, this second meeting of every month, we recognise a personal character, a good personal character. At this time, our councilwoman Holmes will call her recipient. SPEAKER: Ms Sherry Cooks, if you would come, please. And if there's anyone who would like to, the character council, please. And the media family or anyone who she invited to hold. (LAUGHTER) (BACKGROUND CHATTER)

SPEAKER: And Chief Healy, if you would come up, please. SPEAKER: And our pastor. (BACKGROUND CHATTER) SPEAKER: Now, Councilwoman Holmes, let us know why she chose Ms Cook as her recipient. And you're looking at the family, and we're going to ask everyone who were here in support of Ms Cook to stand while this is going on. Wow. (APPLAUSE) SPEAKER: All right, Ms Cook. It is with great pride and sincere admiration that Ms Sherry Cook is chosen as the January 2026 Ward 2 Distinctive Character Award recipient for exemplifying the character trait of honour. Honour is demonstrated through a life of integrity, service, and unwavering commitment to others, especially when no spotlight is present. Ms Cook has embodied honour for more than four decades in the city of Opelika and throughout Bradley County. Her life's work reflects a deep and consistent dedication to uplifting children, strengthening families, supporting seniors, and building bridges across our community. -Although a native of Auburn and nurtured in the Strongfield community, she is a valued and respected longtime resident of Ward two. Ms Cook has allowed the values instilled in her by her parents to guide her service.

As a proud Auburn University alumni with a degree in criminal justice and a concentration in youth services, she has poured more than 30 years into the community. Far beyond her professional role, she models service in community outreach efforts, teaching firsthand the importance of giving back. Ms Cook's leadership extends across numerous civic and nonprofit organisations, from raising thousands of dollars for daycare centres and underserved youth, to spearheading major fundraising initiatives, and to also serving as the President of the Opelika Community Liaison. Ms Cook has consistently responded to the needs of our community with action and compassion. Her efforts have contributed to strengthening relationships between law enforcement and residents, raising awareness for victims of violence, supporting disaster relief efforts, and advocating for cancer awareness and child protection initiatives. Her current work to enhance the quality of life for seniors directly demonstrates her heart for those often overwhelmed. Through collaboration with local nonprofits, city officials, and community partners, she continues to create educational and recreational opportunities that bring engagement to our elders. Although her daily actions and drives speak to the impact of her service, it is her humility, consistency, and quiet, but loud and bold when needed to be, strength that truly defines her character. Ms Sherry Cook exemplifies honour not only through a single act, but through a lifetime of service marked by integrity, compassion, and leadership. Our city is better because of Ms Cook, and it is my distinct

honour to recognise her as our February Citizen of Character. (APPLAUSE) SPEAKER: Now, just speaking on behalf of our mayor and the Eric Sherry Cook Community of Character Person of the Month, it is with great pleasure that we acknowledge you for your outstanding character within the city of Opelika. Your goodwill for mankind in our city has not gone unnoticed. We hope that others will see your good works and model your actions. Please be encouraged to continue making a difference in the city of Opelika and throughout the world. Presented for this month of February 2026, signed by our mayor, Edna Smith, and our councilwoman, with you, Janotica Holmes. Thank you so very much for all you do. SPEAKER: (APPLAUSE) SPEAKER: (BACKGROUND CHATTER)

GEORGE ALLEN: OK, good. A gender related public comments, Mr. Jones. RUSSELL JONES: OK. If you'd like to speak to the mayor or, excuse me, the council. Please come to my left. If you have not signed the sign in sheet, name, telephone, address, email. This is about agenda related things only. So, if it's something on the agenda to talk about, come to the podium. State your name, your address. Please keep it to three minutes or less. Thanks. GEORGE ALLEN: Thank you. RAY: Good evening. My name is Ray Scanlon. My address is 1435 Tern Lake Drive. I'm here to speak about the moratorium I've had a chance to speak with each of you over the past couple of weeks about it. And I wanted to, add that I'm not sure if it's a good idea. I can tell you that the way it's written new businesses are going to get caught in it as well. And in my situation, when it comes to the possibly the only grocery store that will be on the north side of Opelika that's gotten caught into it as well. My responsibility as it relates to that store is to help put in the infrastructure for it, because I have land on the other side of the street. If I can't sell the land on the other side of the street to an apartment developer who I know who's a good group out of Columbus, then I can't afford to put in the infrastructure, and I don't know what that does to the public's. The language that I've given you to consider is a way around issues where residential and commercial share the same installed infrastructure, it certainly would apply in this situation. It could also apply to the redevelopment of property downtown. I know two large properties downtown have recently traded hands.

And there's some development plans in store for those that have residential component on the second floor that would not be allowed to continue without somehow putting in some language that commercial and residential developments that share the same infrastructure, those residential portions are exempted. That can be done through a PUD. There's no time for that. Now, that would put my situation at least into May and probably require some re-engineering. So, I would like to ask for a motion and a second and a vote on either putting in language or something similar to it as what I provided to each of you last at the last meeting, or putting off the vote on the moratorium itself, until some language that would satisfy all of you can be created. Thank you. MIKE: Good evening, City Council. My name is Mike bass. I'm a long time resident. I've lived in Opelika, 71 going on 72 years. And I'm... MIKE: 805 Forestdale Court. RUSSELL JONES: Thank you. MIKE: Opelika. But yes, I grew up here. I've seen so many changes over the last few years, and it's from a long-time citizen. It's not in our favor. I don't know what's going on. There's so much going on that I hadn't kept up with everything, but it's gotten hard to get out in traffic, and it's disturbed the lives of all the people in Opelika that have been here for decades and years.

And I'm in favor of the moratorium, I really am. I think we need to just to sit back and look at everything. And as far as you know, I'm thinking about it for my grandkids. Because I'd love for them to live in the same town I grew up in. And it's somewhat of a small town, and they could enjoy it like I did. I remember running barefooted, waiting in the park at the monkey park. We weighed the little branch and everything else. And I've talked to a lot of people. A lot of people are in favor of it. A lot of people are excited about it. A little change and all. But anyway, I'm not a spokesman. But anyway, I just want y'all to please consider the moratorium just to give us a chance to step back and look at things. And I'm just I worry about the infrastructure. I'm surprised we haven't had any big issues yet other than the streets and stuff like that. They're falling apart. But anyway, I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. GEORGE ALLEN: There's no other. We'll move on. To the adoption of the consent agenda. Does any council member wish to remove an item from the consent agenda and address it as part of our regular agenda? Having none, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented? TODD RAUCH: So, moved. GEORGE ALLEN: Is that second? LEIGH WHATLEY: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Any discussion? Having none, call the roll Mr. Jones. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye.

RUSSELL JONES: All voted aye to approve the unanimous consent agenda. GEORGE ALLEN: No bids, no resolutions that were not included in the consent agenda. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. President. Our ordinances are four in number two to be considered sort of together, and I'll explain in a moment. Ordinance number one is the second reading to approve the purchase of real property from Stone Martin Builders, LLC. GEORGE ALLEN: Is there a motion for approval? CHUCK BEAMS: So, moved. GEORGE ALLEN: Second. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Any discussion? Having none. Call the roll Mr. Jones. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye. RUSSELL JONES: All voted aye. SPEAKER: The second ordinance for consideration is the second reading to impose a temporary moratorium on new residential and multiple occupancy projects. GEORGE ALLEN: Is there a motion for approval? TODD RAUCH: So moved. GEORGE ALLEN: Is there a second? JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Any discussion? TODD RAUCH: Mr. President, I want to, if any of the council and other council members have any comments or discussion, I would welcome it. I'd like to leave my comments at the end unless there is no discussion. All right. I guess that's up. Mr. President, I want to start by stating clearly that I support the concept of a temporary moratorium. I understand the frustration from residents about the pace of growth, and I agree that we need to take time to ensure that our ordinances and infrastructure planning are aligned with where Opelika is today and now, not where we're going in ten years.

The ordinance before us identifies the need to conduct a comprehensive study review for zoning and building regulations, engage in public outreach, and provide recommendations to the council. The Mayor's Key Advantages of Temporary Development Moratorium sheet handed out at the last City Council meeting listed the intended benefits, planning time, infrastructure alignment, public safety considerations, and public engagement. I agree with all of those goals. My concern is not with the intent; it is with ensuring those goals become enforceable outcomes. Right now, the ordinance tells us what categories of work should happen, but it does not require defined criteria for extending the moratorium, a timeline with milestones, monthly reporting to council, disclosure of consultant scope or cost, draft ordinance language before expiration, or defined criteria for extending the moratorium. If we are going to pause the residential approvals for up to a year, we owe the public a measurable work plan and transparency throughout the process. For that reason, I would like to offer amendments focused on accountability, reporting, and transparency. Therefore, Mr. President, I move to amend the ordinance as follows: under one, amend Section Four regarding duration and extension criteria; and two, replace Section Six with revised language that adds defined study outputs, required milestones, monthly reporting, consultant disclosure, draft ordinance overview deadlines, and public transparency requirements. GEORGE ALLEN: Is there a second? JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Any discussion?

TODD RAUCH: Mr. President, as the owner of the question, I will take my right to speak first so I can go over the amendments that I have proposed and handed out to the council. I want to walk through the amendments in order and explain to everyone the idea for them. Starting with Section Four, it's on page two, I think line 57–59. This is under Section Four, Duration and Extension Criteria. These amendments do not change the scope of the moratorium. They do one thing: they ensure that the goals already stated in the ordinance are delivered with accountability, transparency, and measured outcomes. Briefly walking through the ordinance, my amendment on Section Four would require that any extension include a written progress report, identification of remaining tasks, a revised timeline, and formal council findings explaining why an extension is necessary. This prevents the moratorium from becoming open-ended and ensures measurable progress before the extension process. In Section Six A on page three, starting at line 33 under Comprehensive Study Requirements, Section Six A currently requires a comprehensive study. My amendment defines what that study must include, which is baseline capacity assessments for water, sewer, power, first responders, transportation, schools, and parks. It also includes identification of geographic constraint

areas, infrastructure protections, policy options, and an implementation roadmap. This ensures we receive more than a narrative report; we actually receive actionable data. Under Section Six B on line item 54 under Ordinance Review, Section Six B requires review of zoning and design regulations. My amendment requires identification of specific ordinance sections under review, assessment of legal defensibility, and draft amendment language. This is especially important given the discussion about national builders and the potential of legal exposure with the city. Under Section Six C, Public Engagement, line item 63 on page three, the Mayor's Key Advantages sheet mentions a public open house midway through the moratorium. My amendment formalizes public engagement by requiring a kickoff meeting within 60 days, a midpoint meeting, a pre-final recommendation meeting, and a publicly accessible web page containing reports, drafts, and meeting material. This ensures ongoing transparency, not just a single event that some people may not be able to attend. Under Section Six D, Work Plan and Milestones, which is on page four, line item 12, my amendment requires a written work plan within 45 days of the effective date, including

defined milestones, responsible departments, target dates, and a final report deadline of March 1, 2027. This keeps the process structured and prevents the moratorium from drifting. Under Section Six E, Monthly Reporting, which is on page four, line item 21, beginning June 2026, the Planning Commission and staff would submit monthly reports to the council and post them publicly. These reports would include completed tasks, upcoming tasks, preliminary findings, obstacles, and timeline adjustments. That allows the council to guide the process in real time. In Section Six F, which is on page four, line item 31, designated as Draft Ordinance Review Deadlines, draft amendments must be presented to council in a work session no later than March 15, 2027. That ensures that the council has adequate time to review and shape the final changes before the expiration of the moratorium. Under Section Six G, located on line item 36, page four, designated as Consultant Disclosure, my amendment states that if third-party consultants are used, whether for ordinance drafting, infrastructure review, or traffic analysis, the scope, deliverables, timeline, and costs must be disclosed to the council. This provides full transparency and clarity regarding outside involvement with the moratorium.

Under Section Six H, which is on page four, line item 47, designated as Public Access, my amendment adds that all non-confidential materials produced during the moratorium must be publicly accessible online. If we are asking the public to trust this process, they should be able to see it with easy access. In closing, these amendments do not change the moratorium. They do not expand it. They do not narrow it. They ensure that the goals described in the ordinance and the mayor's summary become measurable, transparent, and enforceable. If we are going to pause development approvals for up to a year, we owe the citizens of Opelika a structured process with accountability and visible results. When talking with constituents and business owners in the City of Opelika, the number one recommendation I received from them was that they were mostly in favor of a moratorium. However, a majority of them also recommended being careful and reaching out to other governments that have dealt with a moratorium before. They have been stuck in the middle, not being able to build businesses but also having residential rooftops nearby to support them, which we are experiencing, as Mr. Cannon talked about, with the Publix grocery store. Therefore, I think that these amendments to the moratorium would add more structure, transparency, and accountability, not only from the City of Opelika but also cooperation and workforce alignment with our Planning Commission and the City Council. I, as one who represents Ward Five and my constituents, want

to make sure that I can answer to them that this moratorium was a success and be able to list the successes that it achieved. Because at the end of the day, in 2027, home prices are still going to go up. Construction costs are still going to go up. Development costs are still going to go up. One thing that we have talked about for years is the use of affordable housing and being able to create more opportunity for our residents in the City of Opelika. This moratorium is going to put a stint in that process as these prices go up in 2027 when this opens back up. I want to make sure that we have measurable success with metrics and proven results that we can report back to our constituents that say, yes, we took the time to understand what this means, and we also took the process to see what those deliverables meant to the city. Therefore, I respectfully ask for your support on these amendments. Thank you, Mr. President. GEORGE ALLEN: Any other discussion? RUSSELL JONES: Mr. President, may I add one thing, please? Under Ordinance 32-25, the City Council adopted this ordinance, and under Section 2-169 of the Rules of Procedure, Section D, resolutions and ordinances sponsored by council members shall be reviewed by the Legal Department before introduction. Mr. Root did provide this to the city attorney this afternoon, but it is up to the city attorney as to whether or not he has been able to review it. RUSSELL JONES: Just to make you aware of your rules of procedure. GEORGE ALLEN: And we will get to our city attorney as well. So, any other discussion from the council? GEORGE ALLEN: Yes. CHUCK BEAMS: Let me ask a question first. Who wrote the ordinance as written?

GEORGE ALLEN: Our legal department. CHUCK BEAMS: In conjunction with... GEORGE ALLEN: With our planning department. CHUCK BEAMS: All right. That was my question. I'm going to give you my thoughts on this. Before I explain why I'm supporting this moratorium, I want to note that I've received many emails and phone calls about it. Most of the feedback I've received has been supportive. There have also been folks who are not supportive, and I appreciate hearing from them. All of that input matters, and I've taken it seriously. During my campaign, the number one issue I heard from residents in Ward Four was the need for responsible growth. That feedback has stayed with me, and it is directly relevant to tonight's discussion. I support the moratorium because it's not about stopping growth. Opelika is growing, and that's a positive thing. But growth has to be matched with infrastructure, public safety, and quality standards. CHUCK BEAMS: Right now, development is moving faster than our ability to evaluate its cumulative impact. We've already had thousands of approved residential units in the pipeline, and this moratorium does not affect those projects. What it does is give us a defined window to step back and evaluate traffic, utilities, public safety, and zoning together so that future growth is sustainable and aligned with our long-term vision. For this moratorium to work, we need disciplined execution. TODD RAUCH: Point of order, Mr. President. GEORGE ALLEN: No. TODD RAUCH: It is procedural. RUSSELL JONES: You made a point of order. TODD RAUCH: Point of order, Mr. President. During this time in the amendments, we can only discuss the amendments. We can't discuss the moratorium as a whole. RUSSELL JONES: That's correct. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Yes. RUSSELL JONES: Correct. GEORGE ALLEN: Yes. Well taken. You can continue. CHUCK BEAMS: For this moratorium to work. We need this... GEORGE ALLEN: Talking about the amendment. RUSSELL JONES: You have to talk about the amendment.

CHUCK BEAMS: When we get done, I'll finish reading this. GEORGE ALLEN: OK. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Yes. One thing. Does the amendment once, if approved or adopted by the council, will it put us back at a first reading? GEORGE ALLEN: Well... JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Up to the citizens to be able to come back on. GEORGE ALLEN: I'm going to yield to our city attorney. That way, he can tell us what would happen if we approved the amendment and the procedure that we must go to in order to get back to the regular ordinance, or to do it along with the amendment. LEIGH WHATLEY: Thank you. GEORGE ALLEN: For clarification. ROBBIE TREESE: The short answer is yes. You'd have to start from zero and republish everything under the state statutes having to do with zoning. Correct. I'm a little hesitant because the legal department would be charged in part with the responsibility of defending it, and we already have pretty significant evidence that that's going to have to happen. So, I don't want to put all the cards that the city has on the table at this point. But to answer your question, yes, we start from zero. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: And does this allow you? I know tonight you received this tonight. Would you need more time to take a look at the proposed amendments and get with counsel, Mentor? ROBBIE TREESE: Absolutely. TODD RAUCH: My goal for the amendments is not to stall the process. It's not to table it. It's not to make it cause the stay to go longer. I know that we have made amendments before, but Mr. Treece, you make a good point with the zoning ordinance and having to start over. That is something different than what we've done in the past.

My goal with the amendment is to make sure that we have measurable goals that we can prove throughout the process. We have dealt with ordinances before where we have two different things. We have the legislation, and then we have a supporting document that is just words. Nothing in the legislation says what we can or should do. For example, the rental inspection ordinance was one of those pieces of legislation where we had the ordinance, and then we had the description for it. The idea is to take both of those together and put them together, because otherwise I believe that the amendment adds some context to what we're trying to achieve and also provides reporting to us. Is there anything in the amendment, or is it just as a whole, since it has to do with zoning, that would require it to go from the beginning? Because the idea of it in Section 4 and also Section 6 doesn't deal with specific ideas of this rezoning. It just deals with the reporting and also the expiration. ROBBIE TREESE: Any amendment would require us. It's a different ordinance. And the notice and the transparency resulting from notice that we have to give, the publications that we have to make, have to be of the same thing that the body is passing, the council is passing or not passing, as the case may be. So, it has to be published again. RUSSELL JONES: At least 15 days prior to adoption. That's correct. TODD RAUCH: So, at what point does it start over at like where does it does it just start with public like public. RUSSELL JONES: Notice of public hearing?

A new notice of public hearing with the entire ordinance. So, we'd have to have another. We have to advertise that it has to be at least 15 days before adoption. So, the earliest you could do is 15 days later or more, have a public hearing, and then you could adopt it again. At first reading, you'd have to have unanimous consent. Second. CHUCK BEAMS: And I think I think the challenge here is, this is the first time I've seen this. And I think it obviously you had it during work session. I don't know why you we've been talking about this for three weeks. I personally trust our planning director, and I trust the attorney who wrote this document. I think it is completely, we're completely capable of setting expectations, but I don't think it's our job to micromanage these folks. Clear expectations, metrics that establish progress. I can express that from right here at this chair. What I was saying here is that I believe we can, I'm completely for the moratorium, and I believe we can, let me finish. This is about the amendment. I believe that what you're trying to do here in changing this gets us off track. And it also, it's just I just I obviously you've had help putting this together. I trust what you're saying with what you've done. GEORGE ALLEN: If you would just yield to me, just for a moment, what we, to eliminate some of these discussion problems, if we just vote whether we would accept this amendment, and then we can go on. But if it's not accepted, then we go back to the regular.

RUSSELL JONES: Anybody has anything they want to say about the amendment. TODD RAUCH: I would just like to add one thing. And just to answer your question, Chuck. So, one thing that we have to be incredibly careful on as legislators is the Open Meetings Act. And I spoke about this with the city clerk. The reason why I could not send this to you ahead of time, and I would have loved to, is because this is something that we are going to be voting on, that we are going to be in public with. And for me to reach out to the entire council to give you this in advance would have been counterintuitive to our Sunshine. CHUCK BEAMS: We have the ability to talk, though. I emailed you yesterday morning. GEORGE ALLEN: Point of order, please. At this time, we will vote on accepting the approval or the denial of the amendment. Call the roll Mr. Jones. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: I think Leigh wants to speak to the amendment. LEIGH WHATLEY: I'm good. I'm good. LEIGH WHATLEY: Can I make a motion? GEORGE ALLEN: It's already been made. GEORGE ALLEN: The vote is to approve... RUSSELL JONES: We have more discussion about the amendment or we vote to approve or deny the amendment? GEORGE ALLEN: We vote to approve or deny the amendment. RUSSELL JONES: OK. Ms. Holmes. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: I have a question. RUSSELL JONES: About the amendment. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Yes. So still, even in this, our legal department has to take a look at it before we can vote on it. He has to be able to look thoroughly through it. Correct or no. RUSSELL JONES: That's what your rules of procedure say is. It has to be reviewed by the legal department. Correct. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: So we can't implement if he hasn't had a chance at this particular meeting. Correct. RUSSELL JONES: I mean. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Yeah, I get. RUSSELL JONES: You can vote yes or no. Yeah. ROBBIE TREESE: That's great. You could you could vote. I mean, the amendment. The amendment could be for anything. GEORGE ALLEN: It's been presented and we can vote on it. Call the roll Mr. Jones?

JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Nay. LEIGH WHATLEY: Nay is against it. Correct? RUSSELL JONES: Correct. LEIGH WHATLEY: Nay. CHUCK BEAMS: Nay. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Nay. RUSSELL JONES: OK. The motion to amend the ordinance has failed. Four nays, one aye. So now we're back to the original motion to approve the moratorium as it sits. There's been a motion and a second. CHUCK BEAMS: I'd like to ask for some discussion, Mr. President if I could. GEORGE ALLEN: OK. Any discussion on the moratorium? CHUCK BEAMS: Yes. RUSSELL JONES: Correct. CHUCK BEAMS: I'm gonna start over. GEORGE ALLEN: Yeah. CHUCK BEAMS: Before I explain why I'm supporting this moratorium, I want to note that I've received many emails and phone calls about it. Most of the feedback I've received has been supportive. There are also some folks who are not supportive, and I appreciate hearing from them. Their input matters, and I've taken it seriously. During my campaign, the number one issue I heard from Ward Four residents was the need for responsible growth. That feedback has stayed with me and is directly relevant to this discussion. I support this moratorium because it's not about stopping growth. Opelika is growing, and that's a positive thing. But growth has to be matched with infrastructure, public safety, and quality standards. Right now, development is moving faster than our ability to evaluate its cumulative impact. We already have thousands of approved residential units in the pipeline, and this moratorium does not affect those projects. What it does give us is a defined window to step back and evaluate traffic, utilities, public safety, and zoning together, so future growth is sustainable and aligned with our long-term vision. For this moratorium to work, we need disciplined execution. I expect regular progress updates and measurable

benchmarks so council and the public can see that meaningful work is happening throughout the year. I also want to say clearly that I believe in our planning director and our staff. They are trained professionals. Our role as council is to define the outcomes. We expect stronger ordinances, clear quality standards, and better infrastructure alignment, and then allow the professionals to determine the most appropriate path to get us there. I do not believe this ordinance should move us into prescribing highly specific procedural steps or embedding micromanagement into the code itself. Clear expectations are appropriate. Overly prescriptive direction at the council level is not what should happen. We should trust our professionals to engage the right expertise to bring forward the best solutions. This moratorium gives us the opportunity to modernize outdated ordinances and adopt common-sense quality standards that protect homeowners, neighborhoods, and the long-term integrity of our city. Cities around us have done this well. We need to do the same. A year from now, we should be able to point to updated ordinances, stronger development standards, and a defensible roadmap for responsible growth. If we stay focused on outcomes rather than overregulating the process, we will be in a much stronger position. For those reasons, I will be supporting the moratorium. GEORGE ALLEN: Any other discussion? JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Yes, I would like to speak. I want to say that in supporting the moratorium, I support the moratorium. I also support the transparency and the expectations, setting clear, measurable outcomes and goals. What I am seeing, I know that we had to vote on this ordinance for the amendment, but what I'm asking, or what I will say,

is that I do feel like we can go back to the drawing board and allow our legal department to thoroughly look at what we're proposing or what you're proposing, Todd, because I do see some of the things that are in here that are very valid and very appropriate as far as what the expectations should be and how we're able to communicate back to our citizens. But I do feel like we can go back to allowing Mr. Treece time, if you bring it back, and allow him time to look thoroughly over it and to bring the resolution back and put it in place so that we're able to see what needs to happen with it. I just want to say that I am definitely looking forward to seeing some of the things that is listed here, especially with the transparency for our citizens and the communication being able to be broadcasted for our citizens to be able to see it. GEORGE ALLEN: Any other discussion? Having none, call the roll, Mr Jones. RUSSELL JONES: OK. This is the call roll to approve the moratorium as it is. GEORGE ALLEN: As presented. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye. RUSSELL JONES: Four ayes, one nay. Motion to approve the moratorium as it is, carries. ROBBIE TREESE: Mister President, ordinances number three and four are related in that they authorize the purchase of real property located at 1209 and 1207 Denson Place, respectively. I have communicated with the council by letter, asking them to suspend the rules and vote on these ordinances today to approve them both today, and here's why. The City of Opelika has been operating the railroad track at Monkey Park, the train, from what I understand, since about the’50s or so.

We have been doing so partially running across the backyard properties of these two properties. Back in 1998, the city, I think, made an effort to acquire the properties. For whatever reason, that did not work out, and today is the opportunity to get that done. Hence, we would like to hurry. I think that the property owners would like us to get it in gear, and we are going to build a fence and take care of it. Most of the property is in the floodplain anyway. We probably already have an easement by prescription by use, but this would help shore things up. GEORGE ALLEN: OK, this has been the first reading. I would like to ask a member of the Council to introduce this ordinance for first reading. TODD RAUCH: My pleasure. GEORGE ALLEN: Thank you. Now I will now ask the council for a motion to suspend the rules on ordinance number three. And let us remember, it must be a unanimous decision. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: So moved. TODD RAUCH: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Any discussion? Having none, call the roll Mr. Jones. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye. RUSSELL JONES: All voted aye to suspend the rules. GEORGE ALLEN: And now I will entertain a motion for approval for ordinance number three. RUSSELL JONES: So moved. GEORGE ALLEN: Is there a second? CHUCK BEAMS: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Any discussion? Having none, call the roll, Mr. Jones. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye. RUSSELL JONES: All voted aye to approve. GEORGE ALLEN: And Mr. Treese did mention that these two are tied together. But for first reading, I must entertain a motion.

I must ask someone to introduce this ordinance for first reading. CHUCK BEAMS: My pleasure. GEORGE ALLEN: OK, I will now ask a council member for a motion to suspend the rules on ordinance number four. CHUCK BEAMS: So moved. TODD RAUCH: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Having none, call the roll Mr. Jones. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye. RUSSELL JONES: All voted aye to suspend the rules. GEORGE ALLEN: I will now entertain a motion for approval of ordinance number four. TODD RAUCH: So moved. GEORGE ALLEN: Is there a second? CHUCK BEAMS: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Any discussion? Having none, call the roll, Mr. Jones. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye. RUSSELL JONES: All voted aye to approve. GEORGE ALLEN: Our second roster of public comments, Mr. Jones. RUSSELL JONES: (INAUDIBLE) council. Anything else (INAUDIBLE). Sign in. Sign in sheet. Name. If you do speak, please state your name and your address. (INAUDIBLE CHATTER) MARY: My name is Mary Clark. I live at 706 Orchard Avenue. I keep coming about these houses. Last night I rode by and saw squatters in one of them because I saw a little light in one. If you go down Martin Luther King, you start there. All these houses. I don't mind people buying houses, but why buy houses that you're going to board up? I don't know what kind of houses y'all live in,

but I know y'all wouldn't have these houses next to you. They're all boarded up, and some of them have been for years. If people are going to buy them, it seems like somebody needs to make them fix them up or something instead of them all being boarded up. If you go down that street, there are more streets, but I just took that one street to go down and take pictures of, and there's a little light in one. I keep coming and keep coming about these houses. I know somebody can do something about these houses because it's a danger. You don't know who's living in these houses, who's going in them at night. Sometimes big rats are going in them. I see them running up in there, and that's dangerous too. Somebody. I know you can find out because I know who owns some of them. I found that myself. So, whoever's in charge, I keep coming. I'm going to keep coming until I drop dead. I'm going to keep coming until somebody does something about these buildings. Thank you so much. RUSSELL JONES: Oh, you can do it on the way out. There's a sheet out there. SUE: Hi. I'm Sue Ellen, and I live at 910 Davis Street in Opelika. I think we've heard a lot tonight about transparency, public safety, and studies about safety and public safety. What I would like to say is, especially if that's going to apply to residential building, I would like to see that apply to commercial development also. I would like to see transparency, and I would also like to know if it's common practice for City

Council members to sign NDAs with businesses that want to develop here and why they would do that, because City Council works for us. And we should be able to know what's going on, what's coming and why, and what studies about safety have been done or not done. That is what I would like to see. I would like for each of you City Council members to commit to transparency, period, regardless of the type of development. I know and love some members of this very council and trust them completely, but I think the city deserves to know what's coming, how long it's been coming, and why it's coming. That's all I have to say. Thank you. GEORGE ALLEN: Any others. If not, the character trait of the month is honored to regard with great respect. And at this time, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. TODD RAUCH: So moved. GEORGE ALLEN: Is there a second? JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Second. CHUCK BEAMS: Second. GEORGE ALLEN: Meeting adjourned. RUSSELL JONES: Let's vote. Let me vote, please. GEORGE ALLEN: We don't have to. RUSSELL JONES: Please, please, for my minutes. GEORGE ALLEN: I'll do it for you. But we don't have to. Call the roll. JANATAKA HUGHLEY-HOLMES: Aye. LEIGH WHATLEY: Aye. CHUCK BEAMS: Aye. TODD RAUCH: Aye. GEORGE ALLEN: Aye.