City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Winder City Council work session for September 3rd, 2026. At this time, I'll ask that you stand for prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Our Father, we give you thanks for each and every blessing that we've experienced, for the grace that has carried us through today. for the strength that you give us in time of weakness, and for your presence in the time of our challenges. We pray that you would guide and lead us in your holy name. Amen. Okay, at this time, we've got a couple of changes I need to ask for as we move into the approval of the agenda. I'd like for a motion to approve the agenda with the following changes. The first change would be item number 15 and move it further down the agenda. Wait a minute. Yeah, that's right. We want to remove number 15 from the agenda. Wait a minute. All this has happened in the last few minutes. Okay, we're going to remove it from the agenda. From discussion, yeah. Item number six, the applicant has requested postponement. And item, pardon? Item six. Item six. And item number three is to add a resolution to authorize the condemnation and acquisition by the city of Winder of an interest in certain property along East Midland Avenue, Winder, Georgia, 30680, that does not have an assigned mailing address but is known and identified by Tax Partial Identification Number WN21113 and for other purposes.

And for clarification, that will be item 18?

Yes.

You know, you can always hear an attorney. Back to business. Is there a motion?

Can I make that motion to approve with those changes?

We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Motion unanimous. Thank you. At this time, we'll ask if there's any citizen input. If you wish to address the city council, you may approach the podium. Please state your name and address. You have three minutes. We will not respond tonight, but you're certainly welcome to address the council. Is there anyone who wishes to do so? Come up, please. If you would, sir, would you make sure that mic's on?

Hello, my name is Charlie Finch, resident business owner, East New Street. I'm here to present two petitions representing over 500 signatures from residents, visitors, and other business owners who care about Winder and the future of Winder. Winder is growing. We see it in our business and the overall downtown activity. This growth is good, but as that growth happens, I also think that we have an opportunity and a responsibility to make sure we preserve the small-town character of Winder, which everybody enjoys. The first petition asked for the city to... Force the very good lighting ordinance that Winder already has. I've mentioned this before. This isn't asking the city to create new restrictive ordinances, and it's not about making downtown dark. Good lighting puts light where people can actually, or actually need it, on sidewalks, streets, entrances, and public spaces, rather than throwing glare into people's eyes, neighboring buildings, and to protect wildlife around places like Fort Yargo. and preserving something increasingly rare in communities that are growing like this, which is the ability to look up at the night sky. The second petition concerns North Jackson Street. This summer gave us an opportunity to see what happens when part of the street becomes a place for people instead of simply cars. The response that we've seen has been overwhelmingly positive. We have noticed more people on the weekends hanging out, visiting shops, And the signatures on this petition reflect that. We recognize that there have also been legitimate concerns about losing parking. So we've listened to those concerns. And rather than asking the city to permanently close the entire street, we're proposing a compromise to study converting Jackson Street to one-way traffic, keeping driving on the street parking, on the side while transforming one side into a pedestrian-oriented green space. With this proposal, with the proposed pedestrian overpass, which I think y'all are going to discuss tonight, towards the Wilkins Greenway and Fort Yargo Trail System, Jackson Street could become a natural pedestrian gateway into that. These petitions are about being intentional about growth and to share the community's excitement about Winder's growth. We can have more people downtown. without sacrificing winders' character. So tonight I'm asking City Council to adopt these petitions, to accept these petitions, continue enforcing winders' existing lighting ordinance, and ask staff to seriously study the one-way Jackson Street concept. I have the petitions here. I can hand them off.

If you would pass them to the clerk, please. Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

So growth is coming either way. The question is whether we simply react to it or we intentionally shape it into the kind of winder we want to see 20 years from now. So thank you for your service and everything you're doing for the city. Thank you, sir.

Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council? Being none, we'll move forward. At this time, we'll ask for approval of the minutes. City Council regular meeting August 4th, 2026 at 6 p.m. And the city council executive session from August 4th, 2026, 6 p.m. May I have a motion?

I'll make that motion.

We have a motion. I'll second it. Second. All in favor? Motion carries unanimously. At this time, we'll ask for a motion on the consent agenda with the changes. I'm sorry. Is there any action to be taken? Go ahead. We've changed some processes here.

I think the mayor wants to ask if there's any discussion needed on any particular item that you'd like to pull for later discussion.

I have a question. It would be for Horace. Oh, I'm sorry. I just had one question. It's an easy one. We can move it on. Hey, Horace. On this one, to authorize the PO in the amount of $47,950 for Harrison-Harrison to install the linear feet, is this just the cost of labor? Did I read that correctly? It's only the cost of labor?

It's just labor.

Okay. How much is the material, and is that part of the budget?

The materials were acquired through a council agreement for our gas lines for the project. Typically, we buy in-house all of our materials so that we don't get the contractor markup and the tax added to it. So it's about a 20% savings when we do that, and that's why we generally only award construction materials.

Just the labor costs? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you so much.

Does this council have any other questions? Do you have some?

I think we should move 7-7 to executive session to discuss.

Did you want to do that for 6 as well?

6 and 7.

Yeah, yeah.

So if you'll bear with me here just a second, I'm not sure that's going to qualify. But what you could do is move on with the consent agenda and then the discussion items. And then when executive session comes up, we're able to go in to executive session for any lawful purpose, and I'll have you answer. Okay.

So are we removing it from the consent agenda for now?

Well, so I think the question that's before you all is these are the items that would be anticipated to be on consent agenda Tuesday. Okay. If you want to pull any of them from consent and put them on discussion, let us know now, and then when Tuesday's agenda comes out, it'll be a discussion item. Otherwise, the idea being, you know, anybody got any questions or anything that we've got to discuss on those items, or are you good with it being on consent?

I'm definitely going to.

Is the fire chief here to talk to us about number one? I only ask because I just wonder if there's any more additional agreements that are coming down the pipe. Yeah. Previously, before I was elected, you had come to the city council and you had increased a huge area up there off of Rockland Church Road. And I'm just wondering, is there more areas that we're looking to take in on automatic aid agreements? Or is this the same one?

And, Matt, this is what you have, or your group has come up together as a good coverage, correct?

Yes. It's an area where they have a delayed response, and they've asked, and the deal, well, the plan was for us to send one engine on structural silence on it.

This is not even half a call. This is on.

Is it something that you support?

Sure. Yeah.

All right, so with the exception of items six and seven, everybody good with the items on the consent agenda being on the consent agenda for Tuesday? Mr. Mann, I think you can move to discussion items at your pleasure.

Item number one under discussion is a public hearing and consideration for conditional usage. Further, City of Winder's comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow the sale of beer and wine by the glass in a B2 general commercial zone for a property located at 380 Exchange Boulevard, Bethlehem, Georgia, 30620, also known as map parcel number WN16009F.

Thank you, Mayor. This item is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of beer and wine by the glass in a B2 General Commercial Zoning District. The applicant proposes to operate a golf simulator business within approximately 5,000 square feet of tenant space known as Suite 101 and is part of a three-suite building. Per the letter of intent, the business would include the sale of beer, wine, and a small appetizer menu. Suite 101 has not previously been occupied, making this the first request for alcohol sales at this tenant location. Suite 102 is occupied by Your Pie Pizza, and they received a conditional use approval for the sale of beer and wine in September 2023. And then Suite 103 is occupied by Atlanta Rehab and Performance. Section 319 of the alcoholic beverages ordinance requires approval of a conditional use permit to allow for alcohol sales. In analysis of section 116 of the zoning ordinance, staff found the proposed use is suitable in view of the surrounding commercial development. It complies with all applicable alcohol proximity requirements. It's consistent with the commerce corridor character area of the 2023 winder comprehensive plan. And it's not anticipated to adversely affect adjacent properties or create excessive demands on existing infrastructure. For those reasons, staff recommends approval of the conditional use request to allow for the sale of beer and wine by the glass within approximately 5,000 square feet of tenant space known as Suite 101. And I can provide or expand on any of the staff report at your request. Thank you.

This time we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Being none, is there anyone who wishes to be opposed? Being none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. No discussion. We'll move to item number two. Public hearing and consideration for conditional use per the City of Winder's comprehensive zone ordinance to allow for the sale of packaged beer and packaged wine in a B1 neighborhood commercial zone for property located at 11 Horton Street, Winder, Georgia, 30680, also known as map partial number WN120508. Thank you, Mayor.

This item is a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of packaged beer and wine. The applicant proposes to sell packaged beer and wine from the existing Quick Shop grocery store, which is an established convenience store located on the subject property. Section 319 of your alcoholic beverage ordinances requires a conditional use approval to sell alcohol. The property was previously denied a conditional use permit for the same request on October 8th, 2024. More than six months have elapsed since that denial, making the property eligible for reconsideration. An analysis of section 11.6, our conditional use criteria. Staff found that while the proposed use is generally consistent with the property's B1 zoning classification, the request does not comply with the city's alcohol proximity requirements because the property is located within 100 yards of the Winder Housing Authority and is prohibited per Section 319D1 of the City of Winder's Code of Ordinances. For these reasons, staff is recommending denial of the conditional use. Should City Council approve the request- Staff is recommending three conditions. One, that all code violations be brought into compliance prior to the issuance of any permit. Two, screening be installed along the rear line adjacent to the residential use in accordance with sections 314.8 and 35B.2 of the zoning ordinance. And three, adequate site lighting shall be provided in accordance with section 3.7 of the zoning ordinance.

Thank you. Thank you. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Come up to me.

Good evening. My name's Doug Price. I'm an attorney in Stanton Porter's office. I work part-time for Stanton. I have my law office there. I want to just add one thing. I know everybody's fully aware of this. of all the histories of this, but our position is that the new ordinance contained the pattern after it was included, this OCGA 3-3-21, and the new ordinance is less than... Well, let me see, let me just read this. The City of Wyandotte adopted new ordinance incorporating the language contained in OCGA 3-3-21 for distance requirements for housing authorities to apply to retail sales. That code provides that the section does not apply to renewal of applicants, nor does it apply to properties where consumption of the premises was lawful at any time during the 12 months preceding the application. This new ordinance is less than 12 months old, and thus retail sales would have been lawful on the property for the last 12 months, thus the distance requirement does not apply. So that's our position, and that's our position. Good.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of it? Being known, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Being none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. Any questions, comments? Being none, we'll move to item number three. Public hearing and consideration for a variance per the City of Winders comprehensive zoning ordinance from section 10-23 to allow a wall sign on a public, non-public, facing facade in a B1 neighborhood commercial zone for a property located at 418 Jefferson Highway, Winder, Georgia, 30680, also known as map partial number WN18143A.

Thank you, Mayor. The Mayor has stated what the request is. This request is associated with the McDonald's restaurant that's currently under construction on a 1.07 acre subject property that's adjacent to and shared with Publix. The applicant proposes one wall sign on each side of the building's three non-public street-facing facades, which is part of McDonald's standard signage package. The applicant states that the additional wall signs are part of the signage required for brand cohesiveness as a national restaurant chain. The proposed signs consist of two approximately 14 square foot arches and one approximately 32.8 square foot McDonald's wall sign. A wall sign on the facade facing Jefferson Highway, a public facing facade, is permitted and a permit was issued. For that sign, August of 2026. Section 1023 permits one wall sign per facade facing a public street. The three additional facades face either undeveloped land or the adjacent public's parking lot and therefore do not qualify for wall signage under the current ordinance. In analysis of the variance criteria in sections 11.8 and 10.11 of the zoning ordinance, Staff found the property does not possess extraordinary conditions, creating a hardship. There are no existing conditions or visibility obstructions preventing compliant signage, and the circumstances are associated with the applicant's proposed national branding package rather than physical conditions of the property. Staff also notes that Section 10-11E... specifically provides that no variance shall be granted to allow a greater number of signs than would otherwise be permitted. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the variance request from Section 1023 to allow wall signs on non-public street-facing facades within the B1 zone. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the request? You will state your name and address for the record, please.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Isaac Camden, and my address is 3615 Brazelton Highway. It's nice to see you all again. We're back here for another variance, as Ms. Van Sickle introduced. So, as she said, this is the new McDonald's that's currently going vertical over there at the intersection of Gainesville and Jefferson Highway, right in front of the Publix. There's our site plan again, which you've seen. And we're requesting a variance from Section 1023 of the Winder Zoning Ordinance. As Ms. Van Sickle explained, one sign per public-facing facade is allowed, up to 150 square feet and up to 80% of the width of the facade. So rather than a 150-square-foot sign on one side of the building, we are requesting four much smaller signs that are distributed around all four sides of the building. The total square footage of the signs we're proposing is actually less than 50% of what the allowed maximum is. So we're not requesting additional signage, additional square feet of signage. We're just asking to distribute it around the building so that it can be identified from all sides. The site only has one public-facing facade in that it only has one property line that is actually up against a public right-of-way. But the main access to the site is provided through the public's drive, which, if it were dedicated to the city, would be a public drive. And in addition, it's also highly visible from both Jefferson and Gainesville Highway. As you're coming down that hill by the public's, you know, you may have driven past it already and seen our building coming up. In addition, the signs provide character and soften the building rather than it just being a blank building. And for a little breakdown of the signs that we're proposing, these are the two signs. We'll be proposing multiple of the arch and just one of the McDonald's wordmark. So these are our proposed elevations with the signs. You can see the top left would be the one sign that is currently permittable along Jefferson Highway, and the other three are... the ones that we would like to include in the building. So like I said, there's that side of the building with the McDonald's arches, and then this would be kind of the front side or the front door, which is where we're proposing another arch. And then this is the view of that angle of the building coming from Jefferson Highway. So although that property line is not public-facing. It is very visible, maybe even more so than the actual front of the building when you're driving down that road. The rear elevation, which would be the opposite side of the building from what we were just looking at, is also highly visible from the other public's drive as well as Jefferson Highway from the other direction. And the final elevation, which would be kind of the public side or the rear side, This is where we're suggesting the wordmark of McDonald's to go. And that's the view of the back side or the drive-through side of the building from up on the hill when you come down into Publix there. So the intent of the ordinance as we understand it is to protect aesthetics and promote safe design, prevent clutter and things like that. These signs, as you can see, they're not large or obnoxious. They're mostly just for wayfinding to identify the building. And also, we think that the building looks better with the signs. So rather than a large 150-square-foot sign, you know what I mean? So we're requesting that rather than one sign allowed on the public-facing facade, that we are allowed one sign per facade in order to allow us to put up the signs that we're proposing. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? Come up, sir.

Good evening. My name is Waylon Hogue. I'm a construction manager for McDonald's. I've been a consultant for them for about 26 years. I wanted to talk about McDonald's signage and why it's important. McDonald's is an impulse business, just like any QSR. It's really not a destination restaurant, meaning that when you're going to McDonald's, typically within about 15 seconds, you make a decision whether you're going there or not. Hey, I'm going to get in here. I'll see the sign. I turn quickly. unlike a sit-down restaurant like a Longhorns or something where you've got, hey, let's go meet at this restaurant. So McDonald's and other QSRs rely heavily on signage for that impulse customer. Basically, if you miss that, you will not have the opportunity. They may drive by the drive, and then they're gone. They're going on down to the next one. In this location, we do only have one road frontage, but technically you can see our site from all four sides. You can see it from the Publix. You can see it from up on the hill behind us. And then also as you're coming northbound out of Wander, you're looking at the face of the building just like you saw Publix with the face of their building. So what we're trying to do is just reduce the sign square footage to basically what's half than what's allowed. And then allow us to have strategic locations for the sign so it can be visible. So just wanted to inform you of that. And if you've got any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? If not, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? If not, we'll close public hearing and bring it to the table. Are there any questions? All right. At this time, I'm going to yield. Did I say that?

Renee?

Who?

Just a couple of really quick questions. These are going to be attached to the building, right? Yes, ma'am. Okay, so they're not going to be obstructing any sort of traffic or anything like that? No, ma'am.

They would be wall signs flushed to the wall.

Okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

Before we move to the next item, I'm going to yield the floor to the city attorney, Warren Tillery, for an announcement.

Well, I had a question for council, I think, because I see there are a lot of employees in the audience, and I can imagine it may have something to do with either items six and seven that were on consent, or they're here to watch you all do your thing, one of the two. But when we moved on from consent agenda, those two items will be on discussion Thursday. Were you all intending for them to be on discussion tonight?

Tonight.

It does not qualify for executive session.

I'm good with moving it to discussion. That's fine.

Tonight. Okay. So you just want to add it as items 16 and 17, whatever the next ones are. Okay.

All right.

Well, so... We took 15, which was the grand marshal of the parade. We took that off, and then when we added the resolution to condemn, it went back in place of 15. But item 6 was removed or deferred, but it still is the placeholder.

Yeah, number 6 was removed for 80 cents.

At this time, we'll reconvene. Item number four under discussion, public hearing and consideration for variance per the City of Winders Comprehensive Zone Ordinance from Section 10-23 to allow a wall sign on the non-public facing facade in a B-2 commercial, general commercial zone for a property located at 460 Exchange Boulevard, Bethlehem, Georgia. 30620, also known as map partial WN160200.

Thank you, Mayor. This request is associated with the Space Shop Storage, a recently developed self-storage facility containing approximately 103,000 square feet of building area. The applicant proposes one additional wall sign on the east elevation and one on the west elevation. providing branding on three sides of the building. A wall sign on the south elevation facing Exchange Boulevard is permissible, and they received a sign permit in June 2026. Section 1023 permits one wall sign per facade facing a public street. The east and west elevations do not face public streets and instead face vacant land. Therefore, the two proposed wall signs require variance approvals. In analysis of the variance criteria contained in Sections 11-8 and 10-11 of the zoning ordinance, staff found the property does not possess extraordinary conditions creating a hardship. Application of the ordinance does not create an unnecessary hardship, and there are no existing conditions or visibility obstructions preventing compliant signage. Staff also notes that Section 10-11E specifically provides that no variance shall be granted to allow a greater number of signs than otherwise would be permitted. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the variance request from Section 1023 to allow two wall signs on non-public street-facing facades within the B2 General Commercial Zone. Should City Council approve the variance request, staff recommends a condition. Actually, this condition is not necessary. They have already addressed their code violations that were identified. I got that verified earlier today. So no conditions if you should approve. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Come up, please.

Hi, my name is Felicia Johnson with Altair Sign and Light. I'm representing Spaceshop this evening. And I'm sorry, my address is 2600. Matthew Street, Smyrna 30080. And just to gain a little perspective here, just making sure I do this the right way. Space Shop is, as you can identify with, is really at the curve of the street there. Space Shop has 45 properties in the state of Georgia right now, in which case some of them have undergone a process for variance, and that's only because they've been placed in a position where they're identifying with the hardship of having their brand identified and seen. There's instances where they haven't done that, where they've had an opportunity to have additional signage, and they didn't do that because they the objective of having their brand identified and seen was accomplished on the front wall sign itself. So we're just going to get in here. We do understand that there is a hardship perspective that comes from the jurisdiction, which does deal with the aesthetics. Keeping with that, maybe it's the color, maybe it's the number of signs or how large they can be. But there's definitely a different perspective when it comes to the tenant or the property owner in getting their grant identified and seen. So we'll go on to why we're doing the two signs here. So the east elevation is 24.14 square feet in requests proposed. The west elevation is 49.75 square feet proposed, which is very small compared to the 80% that is required, that is allowed for the length of the elevation. As you can see, the long dimension is 284 feet 4 inches. The cross dimension is 184 feet 4 inches. As you can see, there's sign five and three that sits at the end of the building there where we have the approved sign in the middle. We're having a difficult time being seen from these perspective locations or pathways. So as you can see on the west, you're looking outwards. So you can see how the street curves. If you look down, you can see as you're approaching the west, you can barely see the front elevation. Can't identify it, but you can see it. If you look at the east elevation, you see that there's a street there. And from what I understand, there's going to be a future public street road that goes through there to accommodate the three or four other parcels. So we're looking at that as a positive situation that we could go ahead and have that sign there for future use as the public road goes in. Also, if you look to see the lower view there in the west, I'm sorry, the east, You can't see the front of the building. You can't even see the sign. So as you slowly approach, you're not even going to see the sign until you're literally there. And then at that point, you're probably going to slow up, stop. Somebody behind you is going to honk you and get you out of the way. I'm one of those people. I'm over 50. So I need to see as I'm going up to a new destination to find a location. Where I'm going. GPS does a little bit of a trick to it, but when you have a new building and a new development, it's very important to have signage on each side of the elevation, especially if the building is 103,000 square feet and two stories. So here again, this is what we're proposing. It is an eternal illuminated sign, 24.14 square feet, and that's on the east elevation. And you can see a little bit of a streak there that they're starting, but it's going to continue around once the development takes place. And this is the west, so we're asking for 49.75 square feet on that elevation. So here we're meeting all the aspects of what you are concerned about. So the separate east and west signs address the separate approach views. There's a clear identification help which helps the customers find a new commercial use. The static well mounted identification reduces last second way finding, very important. The channel letters match raceways and the modest areas relate to the facade, which meets color aesthetics. There's no digital display, animation, or off-premise advertising proposed. So here again, we have a large building that presents a distinct east and west faces to separate approaches. A single identification face would not serve both directional view corridors. And of course, the static facade mounted channel letters preserve legibility without digital movement. And then there's the relief is limited to two defined signs totaling 73.89 square feet. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you have any.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the president? Being none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Thank you. All right. At this time, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the table. End of discussion.

Okay.

We'll move on to item number five. Public hearing and consideration for variance per the City of Winder's Comprehensive Zone Ordinance from Section 3-20B to allow a fence in the front yard in a B1 neighborhood commercial zone for property located at 123 McNeil Road, Winder, Georgia, 30620, also known as Mount Parsel, number WN12545.

Thank you, Mayor. The applicant is proposing to install a six foot tall black chain link fence around the perimeter of the existing commercial building site with portions of the fence extending into the front yard at the building line and along the front property line behind the sidewalk. The applicant states that the fence is needed due to ongoing security concerns associated with high pedestrian traffic and repeated trespassing from the neighboring apartments. Section 320B specifically prohibits fences and walls, including chain link fencing, within the front yards of the B1 and B2 commercial districts, except for fences that enclose detention ponds. An analysis of the variance criteria contained in section 11.8 of our zoning ordinance, staff found the property does not possess extraordinary conditions related to its size, shape, or topography. And the property can continue to be reasonably used for its existing commercial purpose without the requested variance. While the applicant's security concerns do not appear to be self-imposed, allowing a six-foot fence within the front yard could impair the purpose of the ordinance, which specifically prohibits fencing within commercial front yards. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the variance request from Section 320B to allow a chain link fence within the front yards. Should City Council approve the variance request, staff recommends the following conditions. Number one, all code violations be brought into compliance prior to the issuance of any permit. Two, any fencing placed within the front yard shall be restricted to a maximum height of six feet. And three, any fencing located within the front yard shall be decorative and constructed of materials permitted by Section 320H of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Thank you.

Okay. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Come up, sir.

Good evening, Mayor, Councillor. My name is Oleg. I'm the owner of the building. I've applied for the variance, and I would like to make a few clarifications. If I press the button, the PowerPoint will start. I hope so. What I would like to clarify is that... The hardship is from the Winder Villas trespassers in front of the 123 McNeil Road constantly. We're planning to have our office at 123 McNeil Road and we keep finding empty bottles by the building and needles and stuff like that. So we see this as a danger to our staff, to our workers. We plan to park our vehicles, work vehicles in front of the building and constantly we have the tenants of the Winder Villas literally walking two feet in front of our building. We have a neighboring grocery store, so they keep going there all the time. So what we would like to request is like a farm-style three-rail block ornamental fence, as Ms. Renier said, from the front of the building to the allowed right-of-way. We already have approval for the chain-link fence, you know, to the front of the building. So that's the planning department already allowed us. So we only seek a variance for the two sides and nothing closed on the front to prevent from cutting from the Winder Villas in front of our 123 McNeil Road. And if I can show you, you can see the trail. So that white van is the front of the building, but that's how people walk from the Winder Villas there. And you can see the middle pictures, how the three... people just literally walk in a private driveway. So we're trying to stop that by requesting the fence. So this is the style of fence that we're planning to put on the left and right of the building. And if you look at the next picture, that's how it's going to look should the city council allow it on the left or right of the building. That's the request. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Being none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Being none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. Is there any discussion at the table? All right. Renee. Renee.

Right.

Renee, it's a B1 business, right?

Yes, sir.

I'm trying to look up the chart. Is this a qualified business for a B1? Does this business qualify for a B1?

The use is permissible in the B1. Okay. I can't quite recall what he said his operation was, but we compared it to something similar to an electrical contractor, which would be permissible in that zone. He may be able to clarify it.

Also, it was noted in the...

in the book that there was some utilities that runs across the front, sewer?

Yes, I believe that there would be some relocation or there would have to be some specifics about where the fence actually were to be installed if council were to approve the variance request, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Rudy. Other comments, questions? All right. Item 6, A and B, was postponed. Item 7, public hearing and consideration for a rezone for the City of Winder's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requesting a rezone from AG Agricultural Zone and R1 Low Density Single Family Residential to R1B High Density Single Family Residential Zone for a property located at 783 City Pond Road, Winder, Georgia, 30680, also known as map parcel number WEN11407.

Thank you, Mayor. The applicant proposes a 40-lot single family residential subdivision. at a density of approximately 1.73 dwelling units per acre. The conceptual plan includes two access points at City Pond Road and the intersection of Idlewood Road and Colonial Hill Road, along with amenities such as a dog park, a community lawn, and approximately 7.36 acres of natural open space. The applicant is also proposing to install and dedicate to the city for public use a 30-foot-wide trail easement along Cedar Creek to connect with the city's planned trail network. The proposed trail will connect to the future CityPond Park East Connector, identified as a Priority 2 project in the city's Complete Streets and Trails Plan. In analysis of Section 116, our rezoning criteria, staff found that the proposed R1B zoning would maintain the predominantly single-family residential character of the surrounding area. It conforms with both the suggested future land use and appropriate zoning designations of the suburban residential character area. Staff also found no information currently indicating that the proposal would create an excessive or burdensome demand on utilities or schools. However, additional traffic analysis may be required to evaluate the development's impact on the surrounding roadway network. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the property from agricultural and low-density single-family residential to high-density single-family residential. Thank you.

Mayor, Council, good evening. Shane Lanham, 1550 North Brown Road, Suite 125 in Lawrenceville. I'm here on behalf of the applicant requesting the rezoning of the subject property, as Ms. Van Sickle indicated, to the R1B zoning classification. The R1B has that high-density residential moniker to it, but I don't know that that really fits in this case. We're only 1.74 units an acre. But the subject property... It is located on the east side of City Pond Road, so we're northwest of downtown Winder. We're north of Cedar Creek, across the street from City Pond and City Pond Park. And as Ms. VanSigel indicated, it's currently zoned AG and R1. So the proposed development is a single-family residential subdivision with a total of 40 lots. Again, that's 1.74 units per acre. We're proposing an entrance off of City Pond Road. So the site plan that you've got here, just based on the shape of the property, north is not up. North is kind of on the left side here. But we've got an entrance along City Pond Road and also proposing a vehicular connection to Colonial Hills Road on the east side of the property. Approximately 7.67 acres are proposed as open space. That's 33% of the property's land area. And as was indicated, amenities would include a community lawn, dog park, and then that 30-foot trail easement in addition to the open space would be dedicated to the city to provide a place for that future trail connection that the city anticipates. We'd also install a six-foot-wide sidewalk along City Pond Road. with a 10-foot-wide streetscape strip and then a crosswalk crossing over City Pond Road to City Pond Park. We propose to do that as part of the development of the property. So here's a snip from the zoning map that shows the subject property. It's actually got two zoning classifications. So the burgundy, call it. I won't use crimson, the C word. But right there. And then the tan on the east side, that piece connects us to Colonial Hills Road. So you can see. City Pond's there in green, but the predominant character of the area is residential. R1 in the city to the east and to the north, and as well as to the southeast. The non-colored areas, that's just unincorporated Barrow County, but those are also single-family residential zoning classifications. And actually across City Pond Road on the north side of the park, there's an R1B already out there on City Pond Road area. And so we would submit that the proposed development is compatible with that surrounding zoning classifications and land use. The subdivision to the northeast side of us, Colonial Hills Road, Idlewood, I was able to pull a plat for that subdivision. I think it was from 1970. I think some of the houses were built in the mid-'80s, but the plat was from 1970. And that's approximately that pod at least adjacent to us is 59 lots on approximately 26.6 acres. That's 2.2 units an acre. That's actually more dense than what we're proposing on the subject property. And where we are adjacent to residential lots in that subdivision, we match lot count. So we have 11 lots. I try this every time. The laser pointer doesn't show up on the TV. But on the top side of the plan, we have 11 residential lots that back up to that subdivision, and that matches with 11 lots on the adjacent subdivision side. Our density is actually lower than the existing adjacent single-family residential, and we match 11 lots to 11 lots. So there's some consistency there, and I would submit to council that that supports our position that this is an appropriate zoning classification and land use for the property. So I would also submit that the proposed development is compatible with the policies of the comprehensive plan, which designates the property as within the suburban residential character area That character area encourages and supports residential development. R1B is listed as the appropriate zoning classification for that area. And the proposed development is in line with those policies. And again, this is just a snip from the trails map that shows the potential connections. So you can see to the west across City Pond Road, you can see the City Pond right there and the park. The proposed 30-foot-wide trail easement would provide an easement location for that trail, which is designated to be on the subject property and provide an eventual connection to Pineshore Park. just to our east, also on the north side of Cedar Creek. So that would help, you know, improve pedestrian connectivity in the area. We also saw that there's a city project for sidewalk infill, so a sidewalk project on City Pond Road as part of the city's effort to improve pedestrian connectivity. And the proposed development would install a pretty significant segment of sidewalk on City Pond Road with the development of the property and so forth. I'll conclude there. I'll reserve any time I have left for rebuttal, but be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Lamb, if you don't mind, you jumped up here so quick. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anything else you want to add?

Did I start before we got started? I'm sorry about that.

I should have known it would be you to do it, but. Thank you.

I'll apologize. I can do it again if you want to.

I think you made it clear. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor of the request? Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Step, come to the podium, please.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Catherine Morris. I'm a Winder resident. I live at 471 Marbury Way. With so much rapid growth across our community, we need to keep tabs on the incremental strain each of these new projects is putting on our natural resources. Sorry, I'm going to get closer. And with so many recent developments, it seems the negative impacts from stormwater overflow to infrastructure wear, they're continuously under-assessed until the damage is already done. So as you consider rezoning this property at 783 City Pond Road, I urge you to look closely at the downstream effects on our water quality and utility capacity. Placing 40 high-density home sites directly along Cedar Creek creates a real risk of a localized flooding, and a harm to the city pond watershed. And once our natural buffers are cleared and paved, that environmental protection is gone. It's a lot harder to get it back. So please prioritize our water resources, protect our community's character, and vote to deny this rezoning request. Thank you so much.

Board, good evening. I have one question. Do I have to give my last name? Well, for my last name, one of the points that I want to point out, my wife is a teacher and I don't need there to be retaliation. Do I have to give my last name? No. No? Okay. First name's Anthony. My wife and I moved down here from Illinois in summer of 24. Love Weiner. Her entire family is here. One of the reasons we bought the house on Idlewood Drive is because of the cows and the farm dogs that are across the street that we can see every morning, every afternoon, every evening. Why it's not too happy? Happy wife, happy life. Not really going on right now, especially because our road is already heavily trafficked because people use it as a cut-through. We've been almost hit numerous times trying to walk our dogs because there's no sidewalks. We've gone to the police multiple times saying, hey, people speed down this road. Can you do something? Oh yeah, we'll be out there to look at it. No, we can't walk our dogs anymore. We're too scared, we're gonna get hit by cars. What are all the construction vehicles gonna do to our road, to City Pond, to Colonial Hills Drive, trying to get all of their materials to the farmland. They're going to destroy it. Our road's already crap. Last time they came out and did something, oh, we'll just put some rocks on it. That did nothing. You're going to add 40 homes. Where are you going to put all the students? My wife knows for a fact that it's a lie that, oh, it's not going to harm the student population. False. Schools are busting at the seams because they're so full and there's no money to build anything. My wife's school has four trailers that are full with students. Where are you going to put the kids? Makes no sense. It's impossible. They're going to build up connected to the creek. So you're going to ruin the creek for houses? Okay. What about all the wildlife that likes to live through there? The deer. Every morning. Their homes are gone. You call yourself a city of trees. Well, for the last two years, we've watched trees be cut down left and right. You're going to cut down all the trees on Rockwell Church Road for a thousand homes. Now you're going to cut down all these trees? I don't think we should be called the City of Trees anymore. Actually, yeah, I hit everything she told me to hit. Yeah, there we go. So, we love it here. Oh, that was the other thing. Sorry. I apologize. We moved from a city that is the entire size of our county and it had a college in it, Champaign-Urbana, University of Illinois. 120,000 people live there. How is our traffic better than a town that's not even a fraction of the size? It takes 15 minutes to go from my house to the McDonald's because of traffic. We're going to continue to add homes and do nothing about the traffic problem. Something's got to change eventually. Either we stop building homes and fix the traffic or build the homes and fix the traffic. Something has to happen. It's starting to get out of hand. Have a good evening. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah Johnson, 89 Sims Road. I get it, the development's going to happen. But we also have to remain cognizant of the developments that's already been approved, whether it's in the city or in the county. And we all know that the Robinson property de-annexed right up the road from that, and that's going to be 340 homes. We have an R1B neighborhood right across the street from that. And all of that water is running downhill. The Robinson property is going to come downhill above Cedar Creek or above City Pond. This is going to be on Cedar Creek. And the site map that it's provided, whether it's not their preliminary plot because it's not approved, but it still shows what they're offering as far as buffers. It's going to be 150 foot off of the creek. It's right below the reservoir. And if we're not going to ensure, and the pond can't go there either. I don't need to be flooded from the other side. Please don't do that to me. It's already silt that's being built up. We don't need the dedication of the trails either. Isn't the city's property right on the other side of that? We can do a trail system there. But the impervious surface has to be set back. Otherwise, we've got nowhere for the water to go. It doesn't need to be R1B. I get it. They're going to sell it and they're going to develop on it anyways. Why do we have to go straight to high density? We can't talk about what's already been approved. with the older homes built in the 70s because we're already paying millions of dollars to fix that. All of the stormwater infrastructure has to be fixed because everyone else is flooding. The low land that's right there, we have to remain cognizant of protecting that because of the fact that the sediment is being pushed down further and further with every rain. The water levels are coming up higher and higher. It's 17-foot drop from the back of my pasture, and it breaches with rain. It's 17 feet down. That's without the water that's coming from additional impervious surface. And then if you allow a pond to go and go straight into the creek, it's going to do the same thing that Stonehaven did. You guys can't do that. You've got to make sure that the creek is protected and the setbacks are put in place. But it doesn't have to be high density. We don't need 42 homes, 40 homes in the subdivision. We can't repeat the mistakes of the past. We have to remember that that's costing taxpayers millions of dollars right now.

Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Thank you for having me and thank you for allowing us to speak tonight. This property directly borders Cedar Creek that sits alongside an existing stream corridor. This is more than a line on a site plan. It is an existing natural system that supports wildlife and vegetation. I'm also concerned about the existing condition of the creek. I have personally observed visible erosion along portions of the creek bank, and one of the sides is completely overtaken with cut-to. There are questions involving Cedar Creek, stream buffers, wetlands, floodplain areas, wildlife, storm water, erosion, watershed requirements, traffic, sewer capacity, and the overall feasibility of the proposed layout. I don't want the council to approve a concept and discover later in the development process that significant changes are necessary because of the environmental damage, drainage, traffic, and infrastructure constraints. I'm asking you to look at this property. as it actually exists today, not simply as a future subdivision on the site plan. I am asking the council to carefully consider whether this property is truly suitable for the intensity of development being proposed, whether the applicable protections have been properly evaluated, and whether the questions surrounding this site have been adequately answered before moving forward. I genuinely believe that responsible growth means looking beyond what can technically be built and asking what is appropriate for the location and what consequences. may come with that decision. What specific protections will be required during clearing and grading to prevent sediment erosion and stormwater runoff from entering Cedar Creek or its buffer? Thank you for having me.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council? Come up, please.

First time we've ever done anything like this. I'm going to cry. I'm Christy. This is Colby Kendall. He bought the property back December of 21. He bought it because of the land in the back. Being able to step out the back door, and it's kind of like being in the country. I'm sorry. I get nervous when I public speak. Like someone said, you can't stop the development. It's going to happen. My neighbor is the one that asked us to come down here as well. Johnny, if anyone knows him. We understand it's going to happen regardless. We just don't want it up against our property. We live at 836 Heidelwood, directly behind the dogs. I can't help it. We don't want the trees cut down. We want buffers put up. 12-year Marine, PTSD, having to deal... We already deal with fireworks. A choice he made moving in. To add additional stress like that is just...

Okay. So, as she said, my name is Colby Kendall. I live at 836 Idlewood Road. There's already traffic that does run through there. That's one of the reasons why I bought the property. It does allow to somewhat get away, I guess would be the best way to put it, and it's... Get away from the city life. So to me, if you're going to add more subdivisions, you're bringing more problems, more potential stuff that's actually going to be hindered rather than get away. That's the biggest thing. And I do like the fact that there are the animals that do come in there. It's a nice place for them.

There are owls.

There's owls. There's deer.

Bats.

I mean... Again, if you're trying to cut down trees and make it so that it's more... Housing is just going to bring more problems. At least that's the way I see it.

We've almost gotten hit backing out of our driveway because people fly up and down Idlewood all the time.

Yes.

Because it's a cut-through. I mean, the school's right there. There's five roads that intersect up there, and they just cut through Idlewood to get to City Pond to get to Rockwell.

I mean, you've been hit almost like four or five times backing out of that driveway. The traffic already is bad. So to add more to it, I think it's just to bring more problems, personally.

Okay. I hate to interrupt you, but we've expired the time limit. We have time limits set. Does the council want to extend it?

Well, I did see two other people who wanted to come up and talk, so I would be happy to give them three minutes each. I just want to give everybody an opportunity to be heard. Obviously, Mr. Lanham can come in and do his rebuttal.

So it It's at the pleasure of the council our policies provide for a collective 10 minutes in favor and in opposition. It is extendable, but if you extend it, you have to give equal time to both sides.

I would like to give the other two who stood up three minutes each. Anybody opposed to that?

If I may, I mean, I think our policy also has a provision of three minutes per speaker with a total of ten minutes to decide, even though three doesn't go into ten. But the point being, how many speakers are there who wish to speak?

Okay, so we have three speakers.

Mr. Mayor, I'd let them speak, and I would time it, and then whatever time we go over, the limit will be added back to those in favor for rebuttal. All right.

Go ahead.

My name is Claudia Shedd. I live at 200 Colonial Hill Road. And I, against this rezone, for all the reasons that were stated before, I won't, that everybody's already said. A big concern of mine is living on Colonial Hill Road. Our traffic is already more than it should be because a lot of people use it as a connector to get to Idlewood and go around to get to the schools. And the increase that would be caused by an exit entrance into this housing area from Colonial Hill would just intensify that. And to... There are no sidewalks on Colonial Hill Road, and already children are dangerously close to the road, walking their pets, riding their bikes, whatever. And that's a big concern for us. I also worry about the infrastructure, and I'm concerned that maybe 40 houses is a little bit much anyway. So I won't hold you up any further. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Come up, please.

Good evening. My name is Pam Carr. I live at A50 Idlewood Road. I sent you all an email earlier, but I'm going to read mine. We do not feel a need to have a huge housing development in our area. There are so many places in Winder now with housing going up. And when there's too small, too much traffic as it is. We live at Idlewood Road, and when I sit on my front porch, I watch the cars, trucks, delivery vehicles, and even school buses zoom speed up and down the road. So if you rezone the property on City Pond Road, maybe allow 20, not 40 homes. We definitely need to repave our road and install a speed bump to slow down the traffic. I call it the patch road because there's so much holes. I do feel, I do have a grandchild who likes to play outside. And with so much traffic, I don't let him play out front. However you do rezone, we ask that you only put a max of 20 units. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I don't have any notes, but I think y'all know I'm Lynn Escobar. My husband, Russell, and I live at 495 High Tower Trail in Winder, right across from the creek. And the main thing I'm concerned about is the traffic. We cannot leave our driveway without going by a school. Unless you're in a helicopter. Because we live near the Windermere High School, the Russell Middle School, and that elementary school. And we live near Sonny Morris, who y'all all know. So we just think the traffic is going to make more of a nightmare. And we work. We have to get to work on time. We love the deer. The deer are going to go. I don't know where they're going to go, but surely not towards Gwinnett County. But I would just like to ask you to consider, you know, 40 more houses. I mean, all of my relatives that have come to visit us have gotten tickets because you have to go 25 everywhere you go when you leave our driveway, no matter what road you go on. And we're very close to City Pond Road. So with all due respect, I wish you would consider and consider. I know they want to build houses, but we've got a lot of houses, y'all. From the new public, it takes about an hour to get to the McDonald's, so I guess it's a good idea they're building one there. But anyway, I just appreciate your time and wanted to speak my mind. Thank you so much.

Thank you, ma'am. At this time, we'll offer... Mr. Lamb, is there anyone else? I don't see anyone.

So, can we clarify? So, I've got a minute 23 for the first and a minute 42 for the second.

All right. So, you know what the balance is, Tom?

He's got roughly six minutes.

Four plus six, is that?

Four minutes left.

Okay. Well, I'll plan to not use all of that time, but do appreciate all the comments from members of the community. And we understand those. Those are all valid concerns. For what it's worth, we do hear them and we'll work between now and the regular meeting next week to try and address them as best we can. First, you know, so we are aware and the engineer specifically is aware that the city of Winder has adopted those new MS4 stormwater management standards. Those are stringent, those are intense, and we're designing around those. So this subdivision will have modern stormwater management facilities in the property, which is different from some of the older subdivisions, including in Winder. I mean everywhere where there's just not stormwater management facilities. You had a lot of lots that had their boundaries right in the center lines of creeks and things like that. So we are observing the stream buffers that are required per code, and we'll have stormwater management systems in place, which – to roughly characterize them, we can't discharge more stormwater off-site than the current undeveloped condition of the property discharges. So we have to capture that stormwater, hold it, treat it, and do stormwater management things and release it at a controlled rate. So for what it's worth, we will have to adhere to those recently adopted stormwater standards. Also, the traffic concerns, we hear those, and I could understand the concern about the cut-through situation And so what we'll do is I'll get with my client and the engineer between now and next week. I think there's some things that we could do to try to address those. I mean, one, and I don't want to speak out of turn, so I'll just discuss with my client. But, you know, we thought that additional vehicular connection to Colonial Hills was a good idea, just added connectivity and access. But it's possible that we could remove that or at least make it emergency vehicles only. So it's. accessible to emergency vehicles for, God forbid, they need access, but it's not providing a cut through for just the general public. Additionally, we could have specifications or even a zoning condition that prohibited construction traffic from going that way. So that's all directed to City Pond Road. And then additionally, perhaps a contribution to the city or even in conjunction with development, we could install some sort of traffic palming devices on Colonial Hills. I think there's a process for that, so I don't want to speak out of turn, but I think those are some ways to try to address that concern. And we understand the buffering situation. The lots adjacent to the Idlewood are relatively deep, so there should be an opportunity to keep the houses farther away from the property line. But we'll look at opportunities to maybe provide a little bit of a buffer or perhaps even some fencing just to provide some screening and separation for neighbors. So I'll stop there. I'm about out of time, but happy to address any questions y'all may have.

Thank you. At this time, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the table. Any questions or comments?

I do. PJ, can I have you come up? For those of you that don't know, PJ is one of our city engineers.

Good evening. Good evening.

Hey, okay, we've talked about some stream issues. One, I want to make sure this is the plan that they presented. It's just a concept.

That's correct.

It has not been reviewed. It's not been vetted by y'all. It's not been stamped or approved at all. It's not a guarantee, correct? That's correct. So this zoning is not saying if we pass the zoning, you get this concept, correct? Okay. The other thing I want to talk about is the buffer with our creek. Can you give us some information on what state standards are and then what city codes above that are?

Yes, ma'am. I talked to our other staff. It would be 150 foot undisturbed and impervious surface setback from the creek banks. So 150 feet, can't touch it.

Okay, so they cannot put a retention pond?

No, ma'am.

Or anything along those lines?

Natural undisturbed.

Completely. Okay, what are our guarantees if we rezone, if we agree to rezone it today? Because I've heard in past some other developments, not just in the city of Winder, but in other areas where... They've received the rezone, and then they started clearing.

You can't clear without a land disturbance permit.

Okay. So they can't cut down a tree in that 150 buffer? Nothing. It's guaranteed that it won't be disturbed.

That's correct.

Correct. Okay. Thank you so much. Yep.

Thanks, PJ.

I also have some other things.

I don't know.

You don't doubt it. Okay, because I have received a lot of emails, texts, calls, and messages about this specific property. And of course, we've heard the concerns tonight. I wanted to see if we could, if y'all would agree to put in some conditions on the property. And I had Renee put To gather some of this, I believe the wording has been approved by Warren. The subject property consisting of approximately 23 acres shall be limited to a maximum of 40 single family detached dwellings. If substantial construction as determined by the zoning administrator has not begun within 12 months following approval of the rezoning, the zoning approval shall expire. Upon expiration, the zoning administrator shall petition the city council to remove the R1B zoning district from the subject property and reinstate the zoning district in effect immediately prior to approval of this rezoning. The property owner shall be provided notice of the petition and an opportunity to be heard before the city council. Three, a mandatory homeowner association shall be established for the development with membership required for all owners of lots within the subdivision. The homeowner association shall be responsible for the ownership and or maintenance as applicable of all common areas, amenities, landscaping, other common improvements not dedicated to and accepted by the city. A declaration of covenant establishing the homeowner association and setting forth its responsibility shall be recorded in real property records of Barrow County. A copy of the recorded declaration shall be submitted to the city of Winder prior to the final plat approval. Number four, no more than 20% of the total dwelling units within the subdivision rounded down to the nearest whole dwelling unit. shall be permitted to be used as a rental property at any one time. This limitation shall constitute a condition of zoning applicable to the subject property. The same rental limitation shall also be incorporated into the recorded declaration of covenants for the subdivision. A copy of the recorded declaration of covenants containing the rental restrictions shall be submitted to the city of Winder prior to final plat approval. And then the last one, any access connection to Colonial Hills Road, Idlewood Road, shall be restricted to emergency vehicle access only. The access shall be designed and constructed to accommodate emergency vehicles while preventing routine vehicle access, subject to review and approval by the city prior to the issues of land disturbance permit. The Homeowner Association shall be responsible for the perpetual maintenance, repair, and and replacement of the gate and associated access control equipment necessary to maintain the emergency-only access restriction. Such responsibility shall be included in the recorded declaration of covenants for the subdivision. And I know it's overkill, but I will put in one more condition that... The land, the 150-foot land around, 150-foot understroke buffer around the creek is also a condition that cannot be touched. Do you all have any issues?

I have a question about the emergency vehicles restriction for the colonial road access. Who's going to be enforcing that and how are we going to do that?

I have a better idea. I have a better idea. Now listen. Beth, we don't require... A neighborhood of this size to have an additional entrance? I mean, only 40 houses? It shouldn't need an additional entrance based on that number. Yeah, that wouldn't be the threshold because that's pretty low.

Then I'm happy to say we removed that back entrance altogether.

Can we just remove it?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. I think ultimately that's going to be a question for Mr. Lanham and his client. But on two axes, even if it doesn't meet the threshold, maybe preferable because you don't have to go all the way around with an emergency vehicle. To one of your questions over there about how do you make that work, it's a gate that's installed with a, and I forget the technical term of it, but it's basically a knockdown key that only the fire department or the emergency medical services have. So it's a way in, but without it being an access point. That said, I mean, your chief's here. If he has an opinion on elimination of it or not, I'll leave that to him. Well, I just know that.

I see you trying to slide out the door there.

It is. I can't sleep at night.

I don't let you drive the new truck either. Okay. Okay.

So while we're looking at this. It is under the threshold. The fire marshal was saying he would like to keep it. That's something that can be discussed. But it is under the threshold that the code allows or requires.

The fire marshal would want to keep it?

Yeah, he said on a text to Renee that he would like to keep it. That's something that can be discussed.

Do you have gates other places around the city where you can get in? Absolutely.

The larger subdivisions will have either two entrances or they'll have to be a separate private gate that we have access to just for access.

Okay. The villas as well?

Yeah, the larger subdivisions all have that, and some we've had to tie in the backside. And then as to the rest of the conditions, like, Mandatory HOA is something that you often require for those subdivisions. The rental condition is becoming a trend in the sense of a limitation to no more than 10% or 20% or whatever the percentage was there of rentals so that it's not an entire rental community. And I forget the – I mean, the stream buffers –

I know, it's overkill.

Yeah, I mean, there's no question that that stream buffer is going to apply now. Remind me what the other condition was.

The amount of homes that are allotted on the property.

Yeah.

I mean, that is what's shown in the... My concern was if we're considering R1B... And that's high density single family. Even though I know because we have the setback and things along that, it is going to restrict it. I just want to make sure that there are no more than what they're proposing right now. To me, this looks pretty congested. And so I wanted to make sure if we rezoned it and they find a different developer, you know, the lots aren't any smaller.

Well, and so, you know, the concept plan that got submitted with it is to show some potential designs. But unlike, say, a PUD that's concept plan specific, this is one where the actual design of it will come later when they go to pull a permit. So, like PJ said, they're not locked into this plan. So the number of units is based on what's shown in the plan. That might be a condition that would make sense to consider, and where that number lands is kind of up to you all.

Can I speak now?

Sure.

Yes, sir. I have a problem with the fact that none of us have been appraised by this written document that you have that you've spent time to talk with the attorney about. And then you're throwing at us as if it's gospel. And we're going to tell a developer he needs to take this and put this in blank. I'm speaking.

I understand.

Okay. I've said this since I got on. One person does not speak for the whole council. And unless we're all going to vote on this and approve that, I want to see it. We're not going to go behind everyone's back and say, I want this and I know it's overkill. That's not how the city council works. We work as a team. We don't go behind everyone's back and go to the attorney and say, well, I've spoken with the attorney and we've approved this. That's not how it's done. It's six votes or four votes. That's how it's done.

I appreciate that. Are you finished? Okay. I did not go behind anybody's backs. These were some concerns that I took to our staff, and I said, how can I address these concerns? And the staff said, okay, because I don't want to put the city in a legal situation. bad place. So staff then took it, presented it to Warren, and Warren looked at it and said, okay, these are acceptable. Guess what tonight is about, Dan? Discussion. This is when we talk about this. These are my issues. And I'm asking, is this something that y'all would agree with? I'm not saying you have to. I'm saying I feel strongly about it. But I did not say, Dan, you have to vote on this. Why wasn't it in the packet?

Because I just got it today. She just talked to the city attorney right before the meeting started. I was standing right there and it was not anything.

I was in the meeting before this when she said that.

She was literally going to the city attorney right before the meeting within like 10 minutes before it started asking if she could ask for this. So with all of that said, tonight what we are supposed to do is a work session. We're supposed to talk it out. We can talk it out like civilized people. And that's what we were elected to do. Yes, you are correct that one voice does not control the whole council, but she was elected in order to represent the voices of the people who elected her. So this is what she's doing. And, you know, obviously you're doing what you're supposed to be doing, and you're having your voice for your constituents too, but there's no reason to get hostile. This is getting to be ridiculous, guys.

Yeah.

Yeah, when you best say so.

I like the rental part of her agreement, the thing she wrote out. Only thing about it is I'd like to go parallel what the county does is 10% rather than 20%. If that's okay. That's kind of what the norm is that the county is putting on their restrictions right now. If we can kind of go parallel what they're doing with the covenants. See how they write it up?

Is it a maximum of 10% rental? Yes, ma'am.

It's included in the HOA.

Yeah, and y'all have done that in the past. Yes.

I just wanted to make it legal because I know there's some legal.

What I have seen in other jurisdictions is more commonly 80-20, 20% maximum. The 10% is kind of the norm in Barrow County slash also the city of Winder. Right. I think. I think the condition that I saw said 10%, but that's up to y'all. I think either one of us is fine.

Okay. Hey, another question if you remember. There's a piece of property right across the street from this property that's in question. being developed that was de-annexed from the city from a very, very low-density neighborhood of R1 that is now very high-density, very high-density. Do you remember the count on those lots for that neighborhood right across the street, future development, on the shores of our city pond? 380. 380?

I was going to say 349, but...

Very high density.

I couldn't tell you.

Much greater.

Yeah, but I couldn't tell you, like the one that Mr. Lanham was talking about there, 2.2 units an acre, the proposed density on this is 1.74. I couldn't tell you on the other one, 300 divided into whatever the acres is would give you the units, but I don't know what the acreage is offhand. I think it's right at 100 acres. So then that would be essentially three units per acre. Three units. I mean, that's just the operation math.

My concern about all of it is will our dam hold the water? On all of them. When you consolidate that much water heading down to City Pond Dam, and it's an earthen dam, Will it be able to hold that kind of pressure under a storm? Just a question.

It passed last year.

Is there any other discussion on item number seven? Yes, sir.

I just want to address the two of you. I'm not going to fuss. But what I am going to say is if there is anybody on this council that has something that is not on the agenda that you want to discuss, if somebody is going to bring it to you, ask them to bring enough. So that you can pass it around so that we can see whatever it is. And we can go back and we can study that ourselves. So that we can make a decision on it. And that we choose our words wisely. That's all. Painless.

I appreciate that. Taffy, would you mind sending an email to all of us with that?

I believe Renee was going to make sure everybody got one. Thank you. You got it?

We're going to take a ten minute break.

Camera's rolling.

Camera's on.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. At this time, we'll resume the city council meeting for September 3rd, 2026. Work session. Item number eight on the agenda, consideration of a motion to authorize the mayor to approve the final plat for 203 West Midland Avenue, Winder, Georgia, 30680. also known as PAX, map parcel number WEN11266, zone R1A, medium-density single-family residential parcel into two residential lots in accordance with Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Wynder, Georgia, contingent upon the finding of a regulatory compliance by staff and payment of fees.

Thank you, Mayor. The proposed subdivision will create track one at approximately 0.482 acre and track two at approximately 3.45 acre. An existing single family residence will remain on each track. City Council previously approved the associated preliminary plat and four variance requests on November 3rd, 2025, addressing the front yard setback for track two. the minimum heated floor area for both residences, the garage requirement, and driveway material requirements. In review of the final plat requirements contained in section 28-26 of the subdivision ordinance, staff found that the applicable final plat specifications have been satisfied. The proposed lots also conform with the previously approved preliminary plat variances. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the final plat to subdivide the property into two lots. Thank you.

Thank you. Council have any questions or discussion? All right. Item number nine. Excuse me. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance to adopt an amendment to Appendix A comprehensive zoning ordinance article four use standards of the code of ordinances for the city of Wyandotte regarding personal care. home standards to provide for an effective date and for other purposes.

Thank you, Mayor. During a review of the zoning ordinance, staff identified provisions within section 4-7, which are the personal care home standards that are no longer consistent with the zoning districts in which personal care homes are permitted. The city's use chart in section 4-1 does not permit personal care homes within residential zoning districts. However, section 4-7 contains several standards that specifically contemplate personal care homes being established within residential districts. These provisions include an owner occupancy requirement for personal care homes located in residential districts and a separation requirement intended to prevent the concentration of group personal care homes within residential neighborhoods. The proposed amendment removes these references to personal care homes within residential zoning districts so that the supplemental use standards in Section 4.7 are consistent with the permitted uses established in the use chart. The amendment also revises the parking requirement for group personal care homes to reference that the applicable parking standards contain in Section 11 rather than establishing a separate parking requirement within Section 4-7. Thank you.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the amendment? Being none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Being none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table.

I got a concern. The point about the owner of the home living on premise. My worry with that is if the person's not living there, it becomes a business in a residential neighborhood. And that was the concern that a lot of our constituents had when they came that night. As a person that owns a home occupational business, I live there, and that's what qualifies it as a home business. There's several other members of council that has home businesses that are registered through the city, and they live there, which makes it a home business. I think what we're doing here is we're opening it up by not having a the owner of the business, and it is a business that it's creating itself as a separate entity. It's actually a business in a residential neighborhood. And they can call it the way they want to call it, but they are collecting fees and collecting money for these people to live there and care for these people. So it's actually becoming a business. like a care home or a nursing home or a facility.

Is my recollection from the last time that we had a hearing on, it's that one that we had to deny, right? And did she say that state law does not permit her to live in the home?

That's correct.

Okay.

So I can provide some clarity on all of this. This requirement is specifically when the use is allowed in a residential district, which it's not. Warren could probably speak a little bit more to you on the why we process that application that came before you last month. But in our current permissible use zoning chart, it is not permissible to open a personal care home within a residential zoning district. However, section 4-7 of our zoning ordinance has some criteria that would imply that we do allow residential zoning districts to have personal care homes. So what we're proposing tonight is to remove all of that language that would insinuate that we allow personal care homes in residential districts when our use chart does not allow for them. So you don't have to worry about... No, sir. No, sir.

This is... This is a cleanup item, and I can pull it up, but for time's sake, there is a... There's a use chart. I think it's 4-7 of the code. The use chart has the X's and all that stuff. This is not X. It's not allowed in those residential communities. But the next section says when it's allowed in a residential district and it goes through all that stuff. Well, it's not. But it was at one time. So this is simply just a cleanup to some stuff when we did the rewrite to the code.

Should we discuss an ordinance to go, I guess, alongside this to where it would require that any sort of, like, home business requires, like, the business owner to live within the residence itself, or is that kind of, like, overkill?

Okay.

Yeah, and with regard to the state regs on this, I reviewed them, Renee reviewed them, and We couldn't find anything that matched what the applicant last month was saying on that.

There are a lot of these homes in the county, though. And so there's a lot of the care home facilities that I deliver to. And they fill a niche. They fill a role. And so are we saying with this ordinance that we're not going to allow that at all inside the city limits? Absolutely.

No, only within the residential zoning districts, essentially.

And this code is not saying that. The code already says that. Correct. This was just criteria that would have been applicable if it was permissible, but it's not.

So this is really just to remove any confusion. Yes. Okay. Sorry. If they had, like, a home that's, like, in something that is zoned agriculture... they'd still be able to do something like this if they wanted to make that into a home care facility.

If it was permissible in the use chart, I don't believe we allow it in any of those zoning districts aside from commercial. I believe it's only permissible in neighborhood and general commercial zoning districts currently.

That was a discussion. We'll move to item number 10. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance to adopt an amendment to Appendix A, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Youth Standards of the Code of Ordinances for the City of Wyandotte regarding the number of retail package liquor stores to provide for an effective date and for other purposes.

Thank you, Mayor. We have recently been getting some feedback from city council that they wish to see something like this come before them. So the city of Winder currently has six retail packaged liquor stores in operation. The six stores are Turtle Creek Wine and Spirits to be best packaged. Winder Package Store, Royal Blue Wine and Spirits, Top Shelf Wine and Spirits Shop, and The Bottle Shop. The proposed amendment would create a new section, 4-25 of the zoning ordinance, and would establish six as the maximum number of retail packaged liquor store occupational tax certificates that may be granted within the city. Accordingly, the proposed amendment would cap the number of retail packaged liquor stores at the city's current level. The city currently requires alcohol license to be renewed annually with renewal applications due on or before November 15th. The proposed amendment does not establish an annual renewal process, rather it incorporates the existing November 15th deadline into section 425 and provides the applications for retail package liquor store. OTCs will be processed in the order received until the maximum number of six certificates has been granted. This language is similar to Section 4-17 that provides a maximum number of tobacco retailers. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in favor of the ordinance, proposed ordinance? If not, is there anyone here who wishes to? Speak in opposition. If not, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the table. Any discussion? All right. Item number 11. Appendix A comprehends the zoning ordinance article 3 general provisions of the code of ordinances for the city of Wyandotte regarding landscape and buffer standards, parking requirements, screening requirements to provide for an effective date and for other purposes.

Thank you, Mayor. As part of an ongoing review of our zoning ordinance, staff identified several provisions within Article 3 that warrant clarification or revision to improve consistency among the city's landscaping, buffer, parking, and screening requirements. The proposed amendment makes several revisions to Section 35, 311, and 314. Within 3.5, which is the landscape and buffer standards, the amendment removes duplicative language regarding the relationship between required buffers and yard setbacks, and adds a reference to additional buffer requirements contained within the use-specific standards of Article 4. Within Section 3-11, which are the parking requirements, the amendment establishes a minimum parking requirement of three spaces per 1,000 square feet for automotive and machinery repair uses. which provides a specific standard for the use within the city's parking schedule. And the amendment also revises section 3-14, which is the screening requirements, to streamline the requirements applicable to commercial and industrial properties. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the resolution? I'm making my notes for the next one.

I'm sorry.

Is there any discussion? All right. Item number 12. Public hearing and consideration of a resolution to amend and establish fees for planning and development services for the City of Wyandotte for the fiscal year 2027 budget year.

Thank you, Mayor. Each fiscal year, City Council considers the adoption of updated planning and development services fees. As part of this annual process, staff conducts a review of the existing fee schedule to evaluate whether revisions or adjustments are necessary. For the fiscal year 27, the only proposed revision to the planning and development fees is the addition of the sidewalk and loo fee calculation. Separately, revisions are proposed to the fire inspection and plan review fees. These updates would establish a tiered fee structure for annual fire inspections based on occupancy square footage. as well as additional inspection requirements associated with specialized equipment and systems, including commercial cooking operations, fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems, and fire suppression systems. The revisions will replace the current flat rate annual fire inspection fee of $150. Thank you. Thank you.

This time we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor of the resolution? Being none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Being none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. Is there any further discussion here? Being none, we'll move to item number 13. Consideration of a motion to approve the purchase of four 2026 Chevrolet Tahoes PPV two-wheel drive at a priced not to exceed $54,745 per vehicle, with an expected delivery of one to four weeks. For the patrol vehicles, an additional $16,000 per vehicle is requested for the upfitting of lights, cage, equipment, and striping. A total of $282,980 is requested for the purchase of these police vehicles. From the capital budget.

Chief. Mayor, council. I have attached and sent a copy of several of the vehicles that we have that need replacing. The vehicles that we have that we are trying to replace are 2015 and 2016 models, which are 10 or 11 years old, most of them have 125,000 to 135,000 miles on them. The ones that we have will require a heavy investment to get them repaired and on the road to continue working them, and so that, therefore, is my request to purchase these other four.

Thank you. Questions?

Yes, sir. I was going to ask that. They were requested originally in the capital budget. And then at that time they were requested with the expectation they were going under it through enterprise. And so that changed when they were. My understanding is y'all chose to take them out of the capital, all vehicles out of the capital budget. Say that again?

Under Enterprise, there was a lease payment of so much a month. So the five vehicles would have been a lot less.

Correct.

So has Ronnie figured out where we're going to get $282,000 in addition that wasn't budgeted? I do not know the answer to that question.

I can probably speak on it briefly. with the idea that it'll get supplemented and verified before Tuesday, but I think the idea with this is you can use floss dollars to buy... To purchase it. Yes, we can. And so I have a feeling that's where it's coming from.

Okay. I just don't remember it in the capital budget that we had that set aside.

It is not from your other fund. Okay. Okay.

So... Chief, with these vehicles that we're needing to replace, you said they have like 100. I mean, I don't see the problem with 150,000 miles. My Jeep got 300,000, but I'm not going to go there, okay?

Hold on. We've got other vehicles. These are to the point, though, they either need a transmission, they need motor work, they need... So we can invest another $5,000 into them and get another year out of them.

I'm having a hard time. Will we sell these vehicles?

No, yes, we will strip these and sell them to what we call gutdeals.com. Yes, we will surplus these vehicles. One of them is not operational at all. It does not drive or move at all right now. Okay.

Is there... That's all.

Yes, ma'am.

I do recall that there were some vehicles that the police department was going to need or that you guys were using that you guys would not be able to use anymore if we were not going to continue the lease agreement and whatnot. Are you guys okay with vehicles? This is not part of that then?

This is not part of this.

So if we were to look into having to – fund that later on, that would be something that would be separate.

That is correct. Okay.

How many more vehicles are you guys needing?

Three more that I meant to put on the agenda item and it got left off.

So, Chief, I understand that some of these cars will be sold off or anything. Is there any of them that is rehabbable that we can distribute to? Not of these four.

Okay. That's all. Okay. There is one that the air conditioning system is completely compressor exploded, completely doesn't work. I believe the quote on that one is about $3,500. Okay. So if we invest $3,500 into the air conditioning system and get it back going, it is a 135,000-mile vehicle. But it is possibly that it could be rehabbed, I think is the word you use. Not today. Today they'd have been in office.

And I'm not sure if this is going to be a question that's better directed to Ronnie, but... If we were to do this, would we be able to, I don't even know, like would we be auctioning them off or just like selling parts of them or anything like that?

These particular vehicles, what we've done over the past... probably 10 to 12 years, is we sell them on GovDeals. And they typically bring anywhere from, it's according to whether they run at all or not and what year and how many miles. These model Tahos that are former patrol cars that have some issues running, we usually get anywhere from $800 to $2,000 for them.

Per car?

Per car.

So we would be able to use maybe some of this to offset the cars that we might need to run.

800 to up to 2,000 per car, just according to the vehicle. And that's an average, but we've been selling them pretty regular over the past 10 years, so you get a general feel for it.

Sounds good. Thanks.

Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Item number 14 is a general discussion regarding the wind-up pedestrian bridge at Jackson Street and Highway 8. Project GDOT, PI number 0021599. And here come the engineers.

Good evening again. I'm going to get y'all engineer caps. As long as they look cool. So I've got a couple notes here. I'm just going to read off of them. So we brought this item to City Council to affirm that you, City Council, want to move forward with the request for qualifications to procure engineering services. While meeting with Mr. Toms, Engineering noted our concerns regarding developing a cost estimate with no survey or preliminary plans, so Mr. Toms suggested talking to City Council to discuss. So we have concerns regarding the estimates for the right-of-way utility relocations construction. These could be low, which would mean the city has to make up the difference. So that's why we're here tonight to discuss those concerns and just make sure that we want to move forward with posting the RFQ because once we do that, we're committed financially.

So we could stop. And there are some things we could do. Let's just say it came in. The estimate was $10 million instead of $8 million. We could ask GDOT if we could get out of that and stop it at that point. So that is the way we would write the RFQ if we went that far. But there's some thoughts from Mr. Toms. I don't necessarily disagree with him. Do we want to even go spend that money? Because that could be...

So we'd have to pay up front to figure out if we want to pay for the whole thing. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah.

I think that's probably the best situation. And have you considered using the roadway and making Jackson Street one way? Okay.

It would be environmental.

Everything.

Yeah.

I think it's worth it.

Yeah. And GDOT's given us $8 million. Is that correct?

$6 million. So we would come up with the other two.

Yeah. The 1.6 for preliminary engineering and 300,000.

330,000, and they're putting in 1.3 million, but we wouldn't use all that to get through the concept.

I got you. It'd be something less than that. Less than that, okay. I got you. Sorry, I'm throwing a bunch of numbers out there because it depends on which phase you're talking about. Right now, it's just about the preliminary engineering phase.

Our concern was that if we went any further and it turned out to be and this is not throwing anybody under the bus, staff had to put together some numbers in a pretty short period of time with not a lot of information. It could be that they nailed the cost. But I have some reservations that without a survey and without some preliminary plans to really do a big takeoff, that if it's low and we get too far out, it's pretty clear in the agreement with GDOT that we have to pay the additional money. And once you get to a certain point, you would have to refund I've been talking to Renee, who was part of the team that put that cost estimate together. There's already a couple items that we know were left out. One is the fencing that would have to go along both sides of a pedestrian bridge, and probably a good bit of the money. I could be wrong on this part, but the Georgia Power Park, if you've seen it out there, there's a pretty good set of power lines that would have to be either raised or put underground. That's at least a million dollars there, so there's some concern.

Yeah, and I want to point out that the estimate that we've provided collectively as staff, I mean, that's the best we could do at this point without doing any preliminary engineering, which is what we're always going to recommend doing.

So, quick question. Your original proposal for the mayor and city council February 4th, 2025, you estimated the bridge was $5 million. Right away, it was $500,000. One and a half million for utilities. And I know out on the street, you mentioned it might be a million just for the power company. Now, that's not power lines that have got to be moved. Those are all communication lines, those three big ones, those big wide ones.

And then there's some underground.

And then there's some underground. And then you had, well, you had one and a half million for total utilities. I'm just reading from the cover letter that Don gave us when we were out there. So with another million for engineering, do you think engineering is going to be a full million for Lockway Bridge?

We asked our consultant that, and she actually thought it was low, and that was surprising to me. But the engineering that's listed there, we did confirm that would take us through final construction documents. So this process is very, very tedious and different than what we would be doing if it was just a city project with no federal money involved.

Does the city own Jackson Street?

That is right-of-way.

So that right-of-way, $500,000 for the right-of-way cost, if you put it down that one lane, you wouldn't need that $500,000 to be minimal for right-of-way costs because you already own both sides.

You're saying if the bridge goes in the middle of the street within our right-of-way and we don't have to have any additional right-of-way, then I would say that would be correct. We wouldn't have a need for additional right-of-way costs, but... We would have to make that decision now.

So you're saying...

So just getting back to your number from 2025, you estimated that it was $8 million.

If I'm not mistaken, I'm looking at it. Five million was what? How much did the state give you? Six?

Five or six?

Six point something. So if we walk away today, we don't get that six million. That goes away. That goes to somebody else. So what are we saving? $300,000 to look to the future? I'm not sure because it was an $8 million price. They gave us six point something. And we're looking at $1.6 million on our share. But what are we saving? The $1.6 that we're not going to spend? I'm not understanding this question. Well, I think people are under the understanding that we're going to have $8 million that we can go spend on something else. But that's not true. $6 million is the state's money.

They're going to get their money back.

Yeah, they're going to get their money back. So we're just going to save on what we don't spend.

But if we go ahead with this, we can find out if it's feasible. Correct.

About $300,000, right?

$330,000. Yeah. So $300,000.

We can figure out if it's feasible and if we can go through with it. Is that correct? That's correct.

And let me ask what you need. You need us to vote on that.

Correct. That's right.

I don't know if it's an actual vote. We're just looking for some, I guess, some affirmation. Is it an actual vote? I mean, not tonight, but you need to get the money from us, correct?

Or is it you spending your money?

I think it's already in the capital improvements. Ronnie did put it in the budget. So my next question, if we don't build the bridge, all these sidewalks that we've got approved coming up in the next block payments for Lee Street and Jackson Street, where are they going to go? Are we going to put a heavy-duty pedestrian crossing there to get people to cross that street?

Is it part of the LCI project you're talking about? I don't know the answer to that question.

I know that's under cliffs. That ties up everything all down in that whole neighborhood. And we already got a grant for those sidewalks. And that was going to tie into the bridge and get us over. That's my understanding. What are we doing with that grant money? Are we just going to throw that away and say we're not going to put sidewalks in?

I'm not sure on the exact location.

I'm just asking the question.

And we're not saying to not do it. We're just making you aware of it.

I do know that there's sidewalks, I believe, from being out there along the state route. So within a couple hundred yards, you can cross May Street. You just got to go maybe 100, 200 yards, and you can cross at that signal. There's a crosswalk with... the crosswalk sign that's my answer right now is that the LCI project trails would connect to May Street that way so it would still be connected theoretically A lot of rock under there, I'm sure. A lot of blasting.

We know you will come up with the correct answer. All right. Excuse me. Item number 15 is a resolution. A resolution to authorize the combination and acquisition of the city of Winder of an interest in certain property along East Midland Avenue, Winder, Georgia, 30680. that does not have an assigned mailing address but is known and identified by Tax Parts or Identification Number WN21113 and for other purposes. Any discussion?

All right. This is the... There were two parcels we had to acquire some rights from for the pathway project, the East Midland Pathway. One of them came up a couple months ago, or last month, whenever it was. This one is the other one that when we did our title update, about three days before we sent the offer letter, it sold. So we had to push it off to give the new owner notice that it's back up again tonight. And Don't think that we will need it, but if we do, I'd ask you to approve it. What I mean by that is, in other words, I think we'll get it resolved without having to file for condemnation, but it'll be one extra option. October 31st.

At this time, I'll entertain the motion to go into executive.

We've got two other items.

Item number six. Item number, we'll move back to item number six. Sixteen. Sixteen, I mean. And the next one's seventeen. Right. Okay. Consideration of a motion to repeal all employee policies, procedures, and directives that were implemented and issued to the Personnel Policy Manual since January of twenty-one. that were not adopted by the city council in an open meeting or adopted with the city administrator and mayor's signatures. All policies repealed will revert back to the previously adopted version.

Warren, do we have an ordinance on having the council needing to approve certain personnel policies or anything like that?

We do.

And so any personnel policies that have not come before council since 2021, is that violative of the ordinance that we currently have or any policies that we have?

So what the ordinance provides, and I can pull it up here and let you just have it in front of me. So it's item 265, section 265. Specifically, paragraph five talks about the duties and powers of the city administrator, and one of them is to prepare, revise, and or amend an employee personnel policy subject to the approval of the mayor. So, in other words, it requires mayor and city administrator. Now, there's a different... Without getting too far into the academic distinction between a charter and an ordinance, there is a different provision in the charter, of course, that says that the council can also approve it. That would be important for a couple of reasons. One would be if there's disagreement or deadlock between mayor and administrator. The other would be historically anything that involved a budgetary increase in is something that, again, historically the mayor and city administrator have brought to the council, whereas something that didn't involve a budgetary increase, you know, they could previously, previous administrations felt like they could agree on without necessarily having to bring it to y'all. But if it involved, you know, that budget again, then it's something that, you know, y'all approved the budget, you ought to know about and be able to look at it.

Yes.

So if it's like budgetary, it would require a vote. If it's not budgetary, then if the city administrator and the mayor did not both agree to it, then the council would have to decide.

Yeah. And I want to be clear. I mean, it could be as simple as mayor and administrator agree. It could be that council does it on its own. It could be that mayor and administrator agree that they're going to bring it to council and Because it has some impact beyond just non-financial one. It's something that directly impacts your business. Right.

Okay. That was my question.

I was unaware of the changes.

I don't know a specific number, and Don may be able to tell you or Dr. Graham, but the other issue you've got here is there are, it's a record permanence thing, and what I mean by that is if you look at, This is since January 2021, so it's kind of a wide time frame, more than five years. The idea being here, if you ever have a lawsuit that involves a policy and you needed to show that that policy was validly adopted and implemented, and your own ordinance requires it be approved and signed and it is not, then you're not going to be able to rely on them. So this is really more of a cleanup item. And to the extent that there are any policies that are captured within that repeal that you all decide you like and want to add back, then that's your prerogative. As it stands right now, it's a cleanup item from quite a long time. Now, the ones that I understand here, it looks like there are... There's a few, but I think there's at least four. The attendance and leave policy, the flex work schedule, the personal appearance policy, and the FMLA policy. And there may be... There may be some other policies, including some purchasing issues. Well, they were, and I don't know that you approved them or didn't approve them, but I know that when I received a copy of the policies. There were violations? Well, it's kind of the first thing that happens. I'm not trying to target that any specifically, instance of anything other than one of the first things the new city attorney always does is alright let me get all the policies and ordinances and look at them alright when I arrived there was a 2023 purchasing policy that had an addendum and then it had an amendment and then it had something else that was kind of a four part purchasing policy that's just an example I'm not positive from there but every year there's a new employee manual a new book a new you know whatever Ideally, it would codify all of the changes from the previous year that take place, if any, right? I think that in this instance, some cleanup would be warranted for both the personal policy and the purchasing policy. And, you know, even if the 2023 purchasing policy that I'm talking about that I was kind of given day one Even if that one was perfectly validly adopted and everything, it probably needs some amendments. I mean, over time, you're just going to have those types of things.

But typically, who creates these policies? At least the ones that we're talking about today.

Yeah, usually it's kind of divided among, if it's personnel, it probably starts with the Human Resources Department. We'll probably have input from the city administrator to the point that it gets to a draft. From there, it's probably run through the mayor. It may either simultaneously or in advance go to the city attorney for input and kind of craft it into a format where once you get kind of a final draft, it would come to U6 and... Y'all may say, great. Y'all may say, no, we don't like this. We're going to change X, Y, and Z. We may say, absolutely not. We're not doing it. No way, no how, uh-uh. You know, whatever that guidance may be, but that's the general process of how you get one. Purchasing, it's the same process, but it probably originates from within finance at this point. Historically, the city had Well, historically, historically, it didn't have this, but at some point, probably in 19 or 20, and that is my best guess based on what it seems predates me, you had a purchasing department. You centralized purchasing, and you had a purchasing agent. The purchasing agent's duty was to make sure, okay, if there's a requirement for a certificate of need to put something on an agenda from a department, we have that ready to go. Is there a contract? Has the contract been reviewed by the city attorney? Has it, you know, gone through whatever and gathers those things, negotiates out that and kind of handles it? So if you had that or returned to that, then I would expect a purchasing policy probably originates from them. I think in this circumstance, Ronnie is probably wearing that hat currently.

So I guess my fear is we revert back to a policy that this is the next one in the agenda, I guess, that goes back to 2018 for the leave, the PTO information. I guess my fear is that we've got time and we're about to hire a new administrator who may want to install those, a new policy, correct? My fear is that in getting to that point, we may be less competitive and we may lose some key people, right, if we don't do this right, I guess. That's my concern at this point.

So I think that's fair. I guess I will address it this way. I think the general idea for this was – As of January 2021, staff felt pretty confident they knew and had a verifiable set of policies that had been validly approved, signed. We know what that looked like. From 2021 to now, we have stuff that, candidly, the six of you haven't seen, and I haven't either. We have some stuff that you know, needs cleanup or whatever. So the idea is a reset to the last date that had the last set of policies that we knew everything was approved of. From there, you start to add back or change things. And so that's why item number seven is the one that adds back some of the policies that y'all have already seen. The critical... maybe it's the sick leave legacy pile, I don't remember which one of these it is, but there's one of them, for example, that extended the amount of time that a beneficiary or dependent could remain on COBRA insurance following a line of duty death, essentially. So that's one of them. There's going to be the sick leave policy... And I don't know that I've seen all of these policies. I may have. I'm not saying I haven't. But I'm just saying, like, your policies themselves on this is where you start to add things back. And then, you know, from a policy perspective, it's going to be up to you all in terms of, you know, is it – Remote work, is that something you all want to do or not? It is rhetorical, but, you know, remote work is one to look at. Leave, do you want it to be one pot or two or five or whatever the case may be? How do you want to accrue those? So that's the general idea. To your point, though, yes, you want to remain competitive. Yes, you want to do right by your employees. And, yes, you want to have policies that are modern and match those trends. I don't have a dog in that hunt in terms of what the policies are for those, but we need to know what policy controls. And then more importantly for y'all, you need to be okay with those policies and understand that if there is a policy implemented that has a budgetary impact, that you know what that budgetary impact is and that you have the money to pay it.

So how do you go about, in this case, you know, I can see that it would be hard for us to be able to, as a committee, to come to some kind of decision and consensus on this tonight. So what do we ask to do on Tuesday is just blanket past this and say we revert back to 2018, and then we go from there and change the policies over time with our new administrator, Get managed or whatever.

Yeah, well, it's 2021. Yeah, so you're going back to the policies of last proof of valid adoption from 2021. Then the next item is you're going to add back four of them. You could add back two more, six more, eight more.

What do you mean? I'm sorry, what do you mean by add back?

So there are already one, two, three, four policies in item seven.

Yes.

So when you do item six, it reinstates all the policy. Basically, anything that's happened from 2021 goes away. You're back to January of 2021. That becomes your policy that you ratify. The very next item adds four policies back. Now... If y'all want additional policies, whether it's, you know, Tuesday, next month, two weeks from now in a special call meeting, that is perfectly fine. But, I mean, somebody's going to have to be able to write them. Y'all are going to be able to – you're going to need to review them and look at them. And then also for any policy, I mean, just as a rule of thumb, any policy that is not a budgetary impact, what – former mayors and former administrators have done is they can agree among themselves to do that, and they can implement it without us having to have a meeting in six of us. Now, that doesn't mean y'all won't get a copy, but you don't have to have an up-or-down vote. But former mayors and administrators have had an agreement that if it had a budgetary impact, they'd bring it to y'all for that vote.

If we add back these four, has there been changes to those four that change anything back from what's existing that we know of?

I am going to have to defer that one to either Dr. Graham or Don.

I only ask that because of all these people sitting here. Yeah. They must be here for a reason. Oh, I'm sure.

I'm wondering if that's an issue. I'm going to venture to guess it's the lead policy.

So, and I guess, Dr. Nikki, you might want to find your way coming up here, but before she gets here, let's, I think what we, and I think what a lot of people that are here want, Just want to make sure that they're being covered and not stuff taken away from them. And looking at their future. And that's something that we have to take into consideration as well. So right now, I agree that we should resort back to where we were in 2021. Until we can get a new city administrator in here. And this is just me talking. And we are six people. So we're going to vote on this. But to make sure that they're still covered. And that we are still covered. Because we were good before this new Disney World thing came into progress. And we need to be okay after we take that away. As well as our staff.

Can we make a note to ask our interim city administrator to get us some information or numbers or maybe proposals or what his thoughts would be to grandfather in everybody who's already under the current policies? And then if we revert back, then we would apply to new employees coming up. Is that something that we could do?

My understanding from the memo.

Or it would have to be universal all the way around?

Well, the policy would apply equally across the board, but my understanding from the memo is that it's not. At least with the leave policy, it's not the existing leave gets converted to PTO. You may have a different take on that, but this is just coming from the memo in the agenda packet.

Thank you for having me come on.

There we go. Thank you for having me come up. So just so that I'm clear on the question that I'm answering, can you state the question for me again?

So, sorry, which policy? It was Dana's question. Was it your? I thought it was a grandfathering question.

Well, that was after she asked for Dr. Nikki to come up, and I guess she was addressing Dan's concerns.

Yeah, my question was if you.

If we vote all four of these back in, what difference is it going to make to the employees? And looking at some of the numbers, it's a huge difference.

There is a significant difference. To speak to what you addressed in regards to retention and recruitment. When we went into the policies last year, when I was asked to review the policies, I did research. in looking at our neighboring municipalities, counties, and cities. to see exactly what they were doing in recruits. There was a different mix of some still having sick and vacation and some rolling into a complete PTO, which is personal time off policy. So in looking at that, the goal was to break it into tiers so that you were attractive on one end with recruiting and on the other end you were attractive with retention. And the blessed thing about the City of Winder is you have employees with several years of service beyond the 5, 10, we have 20, 15, 30-plus years of employees. So I looked at doing a tier bracket where the person coming in would have something within the first day of coming in versus our old policy where they had to wait for 90 days before they would even start to work. Also, in our old policy, it was based off of the hours that you weren't determined if you even got the full spread of hours in sick and vacation. So we broke it into tiers. So the longer you stay, the more you earn in time. And you would also, in the attractive part of recruitment, you would get something day one. Because a lot of employees that are considering coming to another municipality is their consideration of what they're leaving behind. They may have vacation already planned in that year that they're about to come to another employer that they're not going to be able to take if they don't start off with anything in their buckets. So that was kind of the mindset with the retention and recruitment. And I did present, to speak to Warren's point, I did present the policies to council. When I did my HR department review, I spoke on all policies that were going to be rolling out to the employees. I did information sessions with employees. I did invites for everyone to attend. The official signing of the policy, it was under my understanding that our administrator did that when I rolled it out and also spoke to council about the policy. So there was acknowledgement and advisement to council and the employees before they rolled out.

There's a but to that. B-U-T. Procedures won't follow. Which puts us in the bad spot. Because Our guys are out there busting their butts working. Not everybody solved the plans. I had no idea it was even passed or signed off on. And I'm not the one that's created this meeting tonight. But I have a lot of sympathy for the great employees that we have here in the city. So, you know, no important thing at the city council.

Oh, no, no, sir. No, Mayor, I'm not. I was just pointing the fact that I was under the direction of the city administrator and what I provided to the employees as well as council. That's all I was pointing to.

The current policy that we have on the PTO- Do you remember what year that policy changed?

It was last year, 2025. Okay.

So when you did your evaluation, you did that on all four of those? Yes. You know, when you did your matrix and you looked at all the neighborhoods, you did it on attendance in the 065, 66, 67, and 65A. Basically, when you did all those numbers together.

You're speaking on the PTO policy?

Yes, compare our policies with everyone else.

Yes, sir. So what I did was I took all the different, I had about 18 municipalities that responded. I curated a... spreadsheet matrix of all their different buckets and all their different tiers. And then what I did was created an average of what each tier was, took that back to city administrator at the time. And I also have in emails where he reviewed it and made his edits and changes. And I even have in emails where he advised me on conversations that I was under the direction and understanding that he was having with said parties. And he told me exactly what the tier should be based on the research. And that's how we landed where we landed.

Okay. Do you still have any of that information?

Yes, sir.

I would love to see that.

My research chart? Yes, sir.

Okay.

Okay, I can say that too.

I'm not sure when the presentation, but I know the last September, October, November, December, if it was during that period, there was a lot of stuff going on in the city council. There was all kinds of stuff going on during election time and everything else.

I have to look back to when I presented the HR updates.

Is this going to be placed on the consent agenda? Is that what we're saying?

Are you talking about for Tuesdays?

My recommendation would be not to put it on the agenda for Tuesday night, but appoint three council members to review it, along with either Warren or Don Thompson. And that's...

What I would suggest on it is a lot of the stuff like the leave policy or like remote work, that type of stuff, that's really probably best more manager, administrator than the lawyer. I think that just comes down to a personnel issue and a budget issue. The ones, you know, when I was giving you the example of the process of this, I mean, the ones that are – Where the lawyer is more heavily involved would be your FMLA, your Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, your, you know, the things that will get you sued in a hurry. You probably do want your lawyer to lease it soon. Right. But the PTO, that's just the staff manager. Okay. Okay.

So what were you saying, Mr. Mayor?

I'd like for us to vote on it as soon as we can, but I think three council members should review the material that Nikki has. I didn't even know any research was done. Shame on me. I'll take this.

You know, where it happened and now we have to rectify it. So it's not your fault. It's not this fault. It's not that fault. It was deceit that was done. And she was under the impression that it was talked about and it wasn't. So I think what we have is we have a competent interim judge. administrator that can help us with this matter and I think if I could Mr. Toms if you could you know work with Dr. Nikki and come up with something that can at some point get to us so that we can definitely say you know yay or nay and if this is what the presentation is then you know we should can you present that on Tuesday

Yeah.

Either or. If you have it with you and you want to talk about it, please do. I'm sorry to put you on the spot.

No, no. Thank you. To me, the question, the reason why it's split up into two is, and this may be more addressing what the city attorney has stated, is is you have a series of policies that were not correctly adopted. Therefore, are they even valid at this time? This was more of a cleanup matter because when it was brought to my attention, because it was implemented incorrectly by one administrator, I wanted the discussion to be out there with the council, one, to understand what policies were implemented without adoption, But the way I would look at it is if they were not correctly adopted, they're not active policies. So instead of being in that limbo to have direction of what policies we're actually operating under, you can adopt any policy you want. The reason why the PTO one was added to this item is it took a lot of the additions to it that cleaned up from the 18 policy. There's some things that what's been presented to you makes it stronger as far as the administrative leave section, some of the things that Dr. Nicky put input back into it. The PTO Going back to the 18, because there's three pots right now, that creates a mess to try to go back to vacation and sick. And this was the, as the city attorney mentioned, this is the one policy or set of policies that the council really needs to decide on because it does have a budgetary impact. Right now there's about $1.2 million, just a broad number, sitting on the books that has to – sit on your budget for leave and PTO because when employees leave, it's paid out to them. Sick time, there was no liability for you. So the more that's in there is budgeted also. So that's the reason why the council as a whole has to decide on that one. The dress code, that's easy for me and the mayor to get together. The old policy that was not adopted is not a bad policy. We would just have to reformat it, sit down with the mayor, sit down with the other department heads and say, is this still something that is valid? During this time, is there something you wish you could do over? And if the mayor agrees on it, that's easy because there's no impact to the budget. The PTO is a different game because if we look at it as it's not valid right now and it's building on your liability in your budget, simply going back to the 18 because of the way the PTO is now in, This was an attempt to actually take a whole leave package. As a council member mentioned, it's more than just the attendance and leave. It took the numbers, and because the old one was zero to nine years and then 10 plus. It was just two categories. And the one presented to you, it breaks down the... Several categories. It's the probationary individuals. It's the 1 to 5 years, 5 to 10, and 10 plus. At the 10 plus, it reverts back to the exact same numbers if you took vacation and sick and combined them in 18, but just puts it under PTO so you don't have to untangle that mess that we've already put back to PTO. So the entire package was the attendance and leave. It pulled out, as council members said, the sick policy because under the PTO, employees no longer accumulate sick. There's no liability saying on the book we're sick because once employees leave, there's no obligation to pay out for sick. Although there is a provision here. in our retirement under GMA that it can roll into time. So what we attempted to do is take the sick, which is a legacy policy. Only those individuals that were here prior to the June 30 of 2025 day has a sick bucket and reverts that back to the original intent of sick leave. So that's your legacy policy that has been provided. Then in addition to that, because one of the competitive tools that I'm sure is in Dr. Graham's research is the maternity-paternity leave. That's very common these days. So we wanted to make sure that the new mothers and fathers are protected. So there's two weeks additional. That was not in any of the old policies, but that is an additional as part of the leave package. Then there was the critical illness, because PTO can be used for vacation, sick, going to the dentist, whatever the employee is entitled to take off, pay time off. However, for those employees that are fairly new, that may acquire the 140 or 160 hours, if they ever got into a situation that needed additional medical attention, the intent was to have a critical illness policy that pays up to six weeks. So if you are an eight-hour-a-day employee, it would be six weeks. If you're a firefighter, it's roughly 72 hours per week, so 72 times six, to provide that extra layer of protection once your PTO ran out. So that was kind of a stab at an entire leave package for the employees. Now, with any policy, whatever you adopt is not going to be the freshest, best policy in a year from now. What I recommend is your entire HR manual be part of your future budget plan. So that when you're adopting the budget, it also gives you a time to look at your policies because most of your policies influence. Somewhere along the line the last six years, and some of it may have been due to COVID, in the attendance and leave, things were put in and taken out with hours. The customer center being open or closed for lunch and things like that. Those are items that the mayor and council should vote on because they impact the citizens. During my previous tenure, anything like that would come before the Mayhem Council. So in addition to budgetary impacts, we looked at it as, did it affect the public? And those things would come before you also. So it was a wider range. Just going back to my previous statement, besides the PTO leave, everything else that is going to be repealed, and in essence, it's not valid Currently, this is just a way for the city clerk to have records of what happened. Everything else can move quickly. If you see the list, if not, our city clerk has a complete list so you can see. The Family Medical Leave Act, that's an easy one. There's a lot of law behind that. Dr. Graham did a great job crafting that. We would send that to either our city attorney or we use, they have a new name, but Ella B. Thompson, our HR attorney, they can look at it with Warren's blessing, give us the check. We go to the mayor and say, this is kind of a federal government law. We just want to make sure we mirror it. I would think that Mayor Terrell would sign off on that, and we could have that implemented by Friday. So there's a lot of things that could happen really quickly. This is the bigger one. And you could, between now and Tuesday, look at it. If there's any tweaks or changes, we can put in or take out whatever causes any concern. Or you could adopt it, knowing that, as the mayor suggested, you all look at it. And you can bring it back to your October, November, or December meeting. But right now, you're in a weird limbo of technically your 18 policy is your adopted policy. And that causes a mess because that basically reverts back to sick and vacation. So we're trying to make it less messy. So that was the whole attempt of this is since we're going back to 18, how close can we go back to 18 with leave but still have the best of what's been adopted or not adopted put in or just due to changes? Would I say every policy typically has a story behind it? There's a reason behind a lot of your HR policies that you can revert back to potentially a previous situation. As we learn from those, we put in the policy. There's a few in here. I won't get to the story, but in working with Dr. Graham, it was important to put it in because we've had conversations with either department heads or had situations. But then we went back and looked at the policy. It was a little gray what we could stand on, so we tried to clean those up along the way, too.

So I have a few concerns because I understand, okay, 2018 is the only thing that was approved. That was eight years ago. Well, just for the leave one. No, let me finish. Because you have a chart here for three different groups of people. And you put in their departments are mostly agree that two weeks is fair for first-time employees, first-year employees. But when you look at what you're offering them from 25 to 26th, I mean, these people are losing hundreds of hours.

And you can adopt, if you want right now, you can just adopt the 25 policy if you're comfortable with that.

Well, my question is, who came up with these figures? These figures were just, we're going to roll everything back to 2018 and throw away eight years of what's been changed over the period of eight years? I mean... That's why he wants to see the study that's to use. I mean, I can understand why they're sitting here.

What you could do is you could adopt the 25 policy into such time as a new policy is implemented, if you want to. We're just asking for you to – what policy are we following currently?

What you're asking us is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

You could Tuesday night adopt the 25 policy as it was written if that's what you would like to do.

So the 25 policy, as I understand it, has some problems though, correct?

Only – only if that's the leave you want to give them. I mean, if you want to give them the leave charts that are in there, there's no problem. You can adopt the 25 policy. There's other things in there that we can clean up after the fact. If the question is the amount of leave, that's your decision. If you want to keep the current policy as it stands, we're asking you to adopt something, because if not, things will revert back to the last one. The only reason why we're saying 2018 is that's the last adopted leave policy.

But that's not their fault.

I'm not saying it's their fault. I'm saying you as counsel have to adopt something. I'm not saying which one to adopt. If you want the 25 policy with the three, four, five, six, seven, and eight weeks, adopt that Tuesday. And then you can change it. But right now we're in limbo because we don't have that policy adopted yet. So you just need to make a decision.

But we have a policy we're following. It's similar to people that are 1099s are getting paid because we just keep continuing to pay them.

So we are following a policy.

We are following the policies right now. So, like, I understand that. But it's like you said, you know, yeah, we can do away with one, but then what are we putting in place? Are we leaving it the way it is until a new administrator, and then we look at it?

My suggestion was that we resort back to the old one until we can get one, that we know that everybody was happy.

But we can't. Well, we can't because of the vacation versus the sick. So we put everything into the PTO, correct? Correct. And so we probably want to go back with the PTO because going back to that may have some legal ramifications. Am I wrong?

I wouldn't say legal ramifications because right now we still have the three pots. We have a vacation pot, a sick pot, and a PTO pot. So if you go back, the vacation pot, and the sick pot continue, and the PTO pot freezes, they can still use it.

But they're not accumulating.

But they're not accumulating. Or you stick with PTO, and the vacation becomes PTO, and the six, you know, so you're still going to, regardless of what you do, there's some cleanup that needs to take place. And to Councilmember Carey's question is, I'm not telling you what policy to adopt. I just need consensus from the council which one he wants to follow.

But we probably need to make a decision on Tuesday.

Yeah.

For a short amount of time. Maybe the policy changes in the future, in the near future, when we get somebody who can sit and think about it and do it, you know.

Okay, thank you.

And, you know, if you leave it on the agenda for Tuesday and for whatever reason you change your mind in between now and then, you can always push it off then.

Here we go.

Is there anything y'all want to talk about, three or four policies that are being added back, or are we pretty much talking about all the policies?

I feel like we've covered personnel, and I don't know if we need to do an executive session tonight, but it's after 9.15, and past my kids' bedtime, so if we can move on, that'd be great.

Mr. Mayor, I don't believe there's anything else other than the need for executive session. It would be for all the reasons listed, summarized as property, personnel, and litigation.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? We will now move into executive session.