City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Winder City Council meeting for September the 8th, 2026. If you will, please stand for prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

May we pray. Gracious Helen, Father God, thank you so much for this day, Lord. Thank you for waking everybody up and waking family members up, Lord Jesus. And thank you for the citizens that have thought in our robbery to be here today, Lord Jesus. Father God, I pray that the decisions that are made today will be made from the heart and they will be received in the manner that they are given. Father God, I thank you for every employee that is employed with the city of Winder. Lord, I thank you for the jobs that they do, Lord, that this city could not run without them. God, I pray that they understand that we appreciate everything that they do, Lord Jesus. Father God, we know that they could work somewhere else, but they're here. And Lord, we want them to know that we appreciate them, Lord Jesus. Father God, we appreciate their families. Father God, we appreciate the citizens that entrusted us to make the decisions that we make tonight. God, I pray all these things in your precious holy name. I pray that you will send angels to hover over every car that leaves this destination until they get to their next. In your precious and holy name, I pray. Amen. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda.

May that motion be approved.

We have a motion. Second. Second. Second. All in favor? Unanimous. Thank you. Before we open for citizen input, a couple things I'd I'd like to point out our charter and our ordinances call for time limits on speakers, and we try to give everyone an equal amount of time. The applicant or appellate, the petitioner, and those in favor of the matter shall have at least 10 minutes to speak. That's a total of 10 minutes, so if three people, four people come in To speak on the same issue under the rules, there's only 10 minutes. Now, we'll come back to that. Those opposed to the matter shall have 10 minutes to speak also, total 10 minutes. So if one person gets up and speaks nine minutes, that leaves one minute for anyone else who wishes to speak. The council may extend these times upon majority vote. Each individual speaker shall have no more than three minutes to speak, except the applicant who can take as much of the ten minutes as desired. The applicant may reserve time for rebuttal upon vote of a majority of the council. Each side may be granted additional time in any amount the council desires. But in such event, the other side shall be granted the same additional time. Time extension may be granted by majority vote. However, this would not be a formal vote, rather a request for an informal consensus with the council. With that, we'll move to citizen input. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in regard to anything on the agenda tonight or any other reason? How do you know? Oh, okay. She's already thrown me a curve. Strike one. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on anything? Come up, sir, if you will. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. At this time, we will move to the consent agenda, and we'll entertain a motion for items 1 through 11 on the consent agenda. Motion.

Motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve. Second. We have a second. All in favor? Motion carries unanimously. Under the regular voting items, item number one, a public hearing and consideration for conditional use Per the City of Wyandotte's comprehensive zone 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. I was waiting for a seat for a neighbor to come in. All right, at this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor? Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in opposition? At this time, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table.

I'd like a motion to be approved.

Motion to approve.

I'll second.

Second. All in favor? Motion carries 6-0. Item number two. Public hearing and consideration for conditional use per the City of Winder's comprehensive zoning ordinance to allow for the sale of packaged beer and packaged wine in a B1 neighborhood commercial zone for a property located at 11 Horton Street, Winder, Georgia, 30680, also known as Mount Parshall, number WN12050A.

Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to remind council, while staff is recommending denial of the application, should council approve the request, we are recommending three conditions. One, related to the code violations being cleaned up. Two, requiring screening along the rear property. And three, requiring site lighting. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak in favor?

Good evening. Again, my name's Doug Price. I'm an attorney in Stanton Porter's office. I understand that there's some history here and that there was an ordinance passed not too terribly long ago where I may probably say this a little bit off, but the new ordinance prohibits alcohol sale, beer and wine, within 100 feet or 100 yards of a housing project. I'm not sure housing project is the right word, but what we're talking about. However, it doesn't... go fully into effect as an outright prohibition for a year if you own the property for a year. So during that year, the window of time is we're here, so we're asking for it, even though we understand that it's not what would be normally approved. I'm not even sure you can even ask for it, honestly, if it wasn't for this window that we're asking under. I fully understand that. That if – the issue I have with this is there's already alcohol sale within 100 feet or 100 yards of the housing apartments. And what's going to happen is somebody goes to this convenience store or this grocery store and wants to buy beer. They're going to have to walk outside and walk next door and buy the beer and wine from the gas station next door. So you're not stopping anything. Again, if there wasn't any alcohol here now, fine. That would be totally different matter. But it already is. And only that right next door. So I don't see why this would be a problem. But again, you know, if, again, I don't argue with the idea of not having alcohol sales within a certain period, certain, you know, certain foot area of wherever a municipality or county does not want it to be. But if it's already there and it's just a convenience store, a grocery store that wants to sell it also, that's what we're asking for. And I don't have any big long-winded thing, but that's it.

Thanks. Thank you.

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

Denial.

We have a motion to deny. Second. We have a second. Call the question. All in favor, ask the question. Full. All opposed.

For clarity, when you say those in favor, you mean those in favor of the motion to deny.

Yeah.

I got that noted. Item number three, a public hearing and consideration for variance per the City of Wyndham's comprehensive zoning ordinance from section 10-23 to allow a wall sign on a non-public facing facade in a B1 neighborhood commercial zone for a property located at 418 Jefferson Highway, Winder, Georgia, 330680, also known as map partial number WN18143A. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Come up, sir.

Good evening. My name is William Marshall with Integrity Engineering. Address is 3615 Brazelton Highway, Tequila, Georgia, 30019. So my colleague Isaac, he presented on Thursday, but I just want to recap some of his points. He was unable to make it tonight. But the main point here is we're not asking for an increase of square footage of wall signage. We're really just trying to strategically place some more subtle signs on the side and rear of the building. As you know, the Publix there, it has frontage along Jefferson Highway and Gainesville Highway, so you're going to have about half of your traffic come in along Jefferson Highway, and then the other half will come through the rear, through the Publix parking lot. So rather than having some kind of bland, blank walls back there, we would like to get some branding on those walls and, you know, improve visibility of the building, help wayfinding with pedestrians and vehicles, so Any questions, clarifications that I could help with?

Good?

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? Being known, is there anyone who is opposed? Being known, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. Make a motion to approve. Motion to approve.

I'll second.

Second. Call the question. All in favor? Five to one. Yeah, five to one. Thank you. Motion passed. Item number four, public hearing and consideration for variance per the City of Wyandotte's comprehensive zoning ordinance from section 10-23 to allow a wall sign on the non-public facing facade in a B-2 general commercial zone for a property located at 460 Exchange Boulevard, Bethlehem, Georgia, 30620. also known as Mail Partial Number WN16020Q, as in Quebec. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Come up, please. If you would, state your name and address.

Hello, my name is Felicia Johnson. Address is 2600 Matthew Street, Smyrna 30080. And I work with Altair Sign and Light. I would like to just come with some facts right now. The fact is that space shop storage is not special. They're not special inside of this decision should you decide to approve, largely because there are a number of different businesses that may suffer the same situation. Here we have, again, the... It's showing it here. This building sets right in the bend of Exchange Boulevard. So in that instance, you're going to have a vantage point of visually 100% seeing the signs from the east and west viewpoints. I had an opportunity to think about it, and it's the same thing that Space Shop does when they are adding signage to their buildings. They want to make sure that the customer gets there safely, that they can actually see the sign to know where they are. One of the things that we don't want to happen is clearly, you know, in the daytime, you might get to a point where you can happen upon the sign from the way where it is right now. But when it's dark, you see nothing. So we wanted you to kind of like take that into consideration, and I do appreciate your grace inside of making this decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? If not, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Being none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. I make a motion to approve. Motion to approve.

I'll second.

Second. All in favor? 4-2. Votes 4-2. Thank you. Item number five is a public hearing and consideration for a variance per the City of Winder's Comprehensive Zone Ordinance from Section 3-20 to allow a fence in a front yard in a B1 neighborhood commercial zone for a property located at 123 McNeil Road, Winder, Georgia, 30620, also known as Mount Parcel, number WN20. 1, 2, 5, 4, 5.

Thank you, Mayor. We just wanted to remind City Council that while we're recommending denial of the variance request, should you approve it, we are recommending three conditions. One, related to cleaning up of the code violations. Two, that the front yard fence is restricted to no higher than six feet. And three, that the fence also be decorative in compliance with our code section 320H. Thank you. Good. Thank you, Mayor.

At 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 speak in opposition? Being none, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. A motion to deny the request. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?

One, two, three, four, five. All opposed? One, five, and one.

Thank you. Item number six, a public hearing and consideration for a rezone per the City of Wynders Comprehensive Zone 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, Wyanda, Georgia, 30680, also known as map parcel number WN11407. All right, at this time we'll open the public hearing.

Mayor, council members, good evening. Shane Lanham, 1550 North Brown Road, Suite 125 in Lawrenceville, here on behalf of the applicant requesting a rezoning of the subject property to the R1B zoning classification. So just to go through the same presentation from last week. Subject properties on the northwest side of town were on the east side of City Pond Road across the street from City Pond and City Pond Park. The proposed development would... Change the zoning of the subject property, which is approximately 23 acres from AG and R1 to R1B. The proposed development would have 40 lots. That's as designed here on the site plan submitted with the application. That's a density of 1.74 units per acre. a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Additionally, we have proposed two entrances, one off of City Pond Road and then an additional second connection to Colonial Hills Road. There was some discussion of the manner of that second access point at the meeting last week. Proposed development would have approximately 7.67 acres of open space. And we would also provide a 30-foot wide easement to the city for a future trail connection along the property's southern boundary. And we would also complement the city's sidewalk, City Pond Road sidewalk project by adding a six-foot sidewalk along our road frontage on City Pond Road, including a crosswalk to City Pond Park near the property's southern boundary line. We would submit to council that the proposed development is compatible with the use and zoning of surrounding properties. It's primarily a residential area. The colored portions of this map, those are properties that are within the city. Just the aerial photograph areas, those are in unincorporated Barrow County, but primarily residential in both cases. There's R1B across the street to the west. and we are adjacent to R1 designations to our east and north in the city of Winder. The proposed development as a residential development, we'd submit, is compatible with the character of the area. Additionally, the adjacent subdivision, Idlewood Road and Colonial Hills Road, I believe it was platted in or around 1970, and a lot of those homes were constructed in the mid-'80s. But I pulled a plat for that adjacent subdivision and said, It was 59 lots over approximately 26.6 acres, so about 2.2 units per acre. So the proposed density is actually less than the adjacent subdivision. And additionally, where we abut that subdivision, we match lot counts. So off of Idlewood Road, there are 11 lots that are adjacent to the subject property, and we would propose 11 lots adjacent to that subdivision. So we match lots. the lot count and actually have a lower density than the adjacent residential subdivision. We'd also submit that the proposed development is compatible with the policies of the Winder's comprehensive plan. We're designated as within the suburban residential area, which encourages single-family residential development. It accommodates R1B as the zoning classification listed as appropriate in the comprehensive plan. And more broadly, the comprehensive plan accommodates limited infill development in this character area that's compatible with the character scope and intensity of surrounding uses. Again, just a note here, this is a snip from the trails map that shows a proposed trail from City Pond Road and connection from City Pond Park to Pine Shore Park to the east of the subject property. And so the dedicated 30-foot easement would provide a connection point for that. that future trail. We appreciate the discussion at last week's council meeting and we've had a chance to review some of the potential conditions that were discussed. Generally we have no objections to those but would propose three modifications of those conditions for council's consideration. First would be the condition number two which provided that essentially call it a 12 month expiration date on the zoning. We would ask just for a little bit of additional flexibility there to extend that to 24 months. Of course, council has the zoning power and can zone properties within its territory as it sees fit. But just, you know, with sometimes the market can be unpredictable and things can happen. And so we'd ask for just a little bit of time there in case we needed more time on the design or if we encountered physical issues with the property that just Extended that a little bit longer. In condition number four, that was the rental cap. Again, that's just a request for council's consideration to increase that rental cap. There was discussion of a 20% cap and then some discussion of a 10% number as well. we would ask to increase that to a maximum of 30%. So with 40 lots, that would be a maximum of 12 units being rental. Again, this is not being designed as a rental community, but again, having some flexibility there, we would ask for council's consideration in that regard. Relative to those conditions, those aren't hills we want to die on, but did want to express those requests to council. And then finally, there was discussion about the watershed protection overlay. The city of Winder, like most jurisdictions in Georgia, has protections for properties that are within water supply watersheds. And so we had a chance over the weekend to dig into that code section. What we would propose is that council omit that condition number six. The reason for that is because the winders code does have a section that speaks to additional stream protections, both impervious surface setbacks and undisturbed stream buffers for land that is within those watershed protection overlays. And so we would ask that council allow that code to operate. And the reason for that is, um, In reviewing that code section, including the definitions for that code section, our position is that the subject property, since it's downstream of the reservoir, therefore our stormwater does not drain into the reservoir. We are actually outside of that overlay protection district. The definition in the code of a water supply watershed is, is the drainage area, parentheses, watershed of lands upstream of a governmentally owned public drinking water intake or water supply reservoir. And then Section 24-102A imports that definition into its requirement. It says this article should be applicable to the following water supply watershed districts. So as you may expect, a code section that's designed to protect excessive runoff from flowing into drinking water supply reservoirs would apply to the actual watershed, right? So we would ask that council omit that condition mandating that enhanced 150-foot buffer because we're outside of that water protection overlay. But I'll conclude there. I'll reserve any time I have for rebuttal, but happy to answer any questions y'all may have.

Two minutes, eight seconds. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in favor? Being none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Come up, sir, please. You would state your name and address?

My name is Johnny Orr. I live at 838 Ottawa Road. What I'm wondering about is what kind of buffer we're going to have between the houses, from my house to the House of the Public Appeal. I wasn't at the last meeting, so I don't really know what went on about some kind of buffer. I heard someone say something about a six-foot wood fence. I don't know if that's true or not. I would say, Renee, do you know? Yes. Okay. She'll be able to help you, Mr. Orr.

I agree.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Well, no, the public hearing will remain open. Shane, you have two minutes and eight seconds.

Yes, sir, Mayor. Just briefly, to address the gentleman's comment, we did mention potential ways we could provide buffering to that adjacent property. And we do have room, even if the code wouldn't allow it, to provide some buffer to that adjacent subdivision. And so what we would propose is a 20-foot-wide replanted buffer adjacent to that subdivision off of Idlewood Road. The goal would be to disturb that area as little as possible. You know, if we don't have to grade, we would prefer not to. It costs money to grade and cut down trees and that sort of thing. But we would propose that in that buffer area, any disturbed areas would be replanted to a buffer standard. So we'd be agreeable to a condition that required a 20-foot buffer adjacent to, I think the name of the subdivision is Northwinder Subdivision. As a 20-foot wide replanted buffer.

All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. At this time, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. Renee, do you have anything to add? Yes.

Renee, I didn't get a number six on the sheet that you handed out last Thursday. Do you have a number six?

Yes, I did hand them out right after y'all went to recess. Number six was one that Councilmember McCormick actually verbally added, and that was the 150-foot undisturbed buffer requirement. That was not one that was talked about beforehand. Thanks.

For clarity, the conditions we're referring to are the ones that were handed out. They are written, possibly with the exception of number six. I think the applicant's been provided a copy, so just keep in mind if we are incorporating those conditions, those are the conditions being referenced. For informational purposes, your HUD ordinance has a 24-month limitation. Otherwise, the language for that condition number two is pretty much the same as what it would be for a PUD, other than the length of time, should y'all consider it. I'm not weighing in either way, but 24 is what it is for PUDs. I did have one question, Renee. On the trail, is that something that's there today, or is that something that would be coming in the future?

It would come as far as... The connection or their proposal to dedicate it to the city?

The second one.

Yeah, that would have to come back before council. You would have to accept that. It's just a proposal, conceptual right now.

Is it their proposal?

Yes.

I guess where I'm headed with that is what we need to have a commission that addresses them preserving some of that space for the trail.

If the city is interested in receiving... that trail we can do that it just right now it's just a concept it's a proposal some details that would have to be worked out it's it goes over top of the sewer easement so we would have to make sure that the surface is is not hard so that sewer can always access that easement so there's just some other details that would have to be but if it's over a sewer easement there's

Maybe not the concern that there would be houses built within an area that would otherwise be set aside for a trail in the future.

You restate that?

In other words, where I'm getting at is a lot of times if you know a project is coming and they're asking for zoning entitlements, a pretty common condition is to require preservation of some amount of space for future acquisition in connection with the trail. Okay. this is sort of the first that I knew there might be a trail issue, but I don't know whether we need a condition on it or not if it's already encumbered by a sewer easement. I don't know if there's anything that you'd have to acquire later. But what you wouldn't want to have happen is in the permitting and design, whether there's something built on top of what you were planning to use as a trail in the future.

Yes, you make a good point. If Council would like to see the trail happen, if a future development should occur there and this proposed one passes, you could require a condition along what Warren is stating that requires some space be dedicated for that trail to ensure that once they get into, like, the land disturbance permit and maybe other things are identified and they realize they might need to eat up that space to get the same amount of units they were expecting to get, you know, because it was conceptual now, they don't have to build it, right?

That's kind of the hard part when there's a garden variety rezoning of attaching too many conditions because R1B is not a site-specific plan, so I don't know that they're far enough along yet to know where exactly they're going to have to preserve this trail path. And they don't have to attach a site plan like they do with PUD. So the condition is a little clunky perhaps. But I think, you know, probably the language would be something to the effect of during the LDP and any building permit review, sufficient space should be set aside for... dedication to the trail project in accordance with the plans that exist today.

Can I ask the question, how wide is our easement going through there? And did we pay for the easement? And do we still own the easement? Or is he giving us something we already own?

I don't have a specific answer to the first two of those questions in terms of whether we He's not giving us anything. Well, we may already have a sewer easement there.

Yeah, the pipe's there today.

So what would happen is if this went through and there was a dedication to the city, it would be accessible to the public. So the public would be able to walk through on that. There might be some sort of service that we have added, and so it wouldn't just simply be a sewer easement for the city to access when they needed to get to it. It would be open to the public and available to walk through to provide connections on either side of the development.

But, you know, if we have an easement across it, and I'm making some assumptions here that may or may not be warranted, but in general, when you have an easement, there'd still be an underlying fee simple owner, which is conceivably Mr. Lanham's client. So of that bundle of rights, we have some of those rights in order to run a sewer pipe, and they would retain the balance of those rights. I haven't read the easement, but if you were wanting to put a walking pathway there, it wouldn't be the worst idea in the world to have a condition that's a sufficient space for it. trail project in the future shall be preserved in the LDP or building permit stage.

I have a question for you, Rene. You mentioned the different variances are very between what we're saying, 150 feet, and because it's technically not feeding the reservoir and through all the technicals. Did you look at that and see if he's right? They don't have to follow any of those?

Yeah, I'm going to ask PJ to come up. They're prepared to speak more on that, their area of expertise. Good evening.

Good evening.

So we actually had some back and forth today between the applicant and us. And although they may be outside the Cedar Creek watershed, the Cedar Creek watershed is a part of the Mulberry River watershed. The Mulberry River watershed has the same 150-foot undisturbed buffer that the Cedar Creek one does. So although I understand their argument, of being outside the reservoir boundary. They're still within the Mulberry River watershed, so the 150-foot undisturbed buffer would still apply based on our code.

Have you seen the drawings that they proposed? Yes, sir. Where do you see 150 foot other than the last house?

So the concept plan that they're presenting to you is just a rendering. It is not what would be for construction. They would have to go for a land disturbance permit and have a full set of civil design drawings to get that land disturbance permit. This is just a conceptual rendering site plan of what you were seeing on the screen.

So based on that information, if we approve R1B, they can come back with something totally different. That's zoned for R1B, I believe so. As long as it meets the R1B, they can come back with townhomes or whatever they want to put in there. Different. I know you had 40 houses.

No, R1B does not have townhomes.

It doesn't, okay.

And it doesn't have apartments.

It has single-family apartments.

Okay.

But to your point, yes, I mean, conceptually, it doesn't have to be what you see today. They could reconfigure the layout anymore.

I would prefer that it is in the stipulation, only because we do have a developer that has mentioned some concerns and has looked at it a different way.

I'd rather just have that safety net in there. It's not just for the Mulberry, but it's also for all of the homes that are downstream that this water is going to impact when we have more impervious surfaces added with the development. Because if you look at that land, it's all rushing down that way. It's just going to add water into that creek. I don't think we should put impervious surfaces closer than that 150-foot buffer. And I understand PJ is saying, you know, at this time looking at it, but we're looking at just a concept. We don't have the final drawing on it to have that full discussion. If I have a 150-foot buffer on either side of the stream put in there, then I know that safety net is there and I don't worry about it anymore. It can't hurt to have it in there.

Agreed.

We can add it.

No, we can definitely add it. This page was just my thoughts that I was flushing through to see if these are conditions that we could add. That's all it was.

Going one step further... And we've seen this time and time again. The developers keep coming back, and they keep changing and changing and changing. And every time we ask, or I ask, or I know we all ask, and I know we've had Horace and we've had our departments come up and say, we've told them MS4, MS4, MS4. Where are they going to put MS4 here? Where are they going to put the collection of the water? You look at this, and you use every single ounce of that land other than your little amenities. is used up, and you didn't even figure for the 150-foot buffer. So where is all the water going to go, and how is it going to not leave that property?

I'm just asking the question. The pond that was shown on that plan is probably adequate in sizing just because they look at that kind of stuff, so they know a ballpark. But the pond will have to move because that's within the 150-foot buffer. So there will be a line that parallels the creek 150 foot, like you said, both sides. And you can't disturb within that line that's shown on that page. So everything's going to be on the screen to the left, shoved to the left. So you're calling that a pond, the creek? No, there's a pond to the left of the creek on the page, stormwater pond area next to the amenities.

And they're going to push all that water to that point?

I mean, that's how it's shown right now, but the 150-foot buffer is not going to allow the plan that you're saying to work. They're going to have to redesign and reconfigure that.

So is it 150 feet from the center of the creek, or is it from... The stream bank. Stream bank. Okay. So not where it floods, because there's a flood zone in the middle of this thing. Correct?

That's right.

It follows the stream bank.

Okay.

I mean... For me, and this is for me, I know you're wanting an R1B, but without giving us all the information to make the correct answer, I don't have enough information to call this an R1B. I don't care how many things we put in place until they can answer because every single one of these developers that come in, we end up going back and making changes and changes and changes and changes. We need less houses. We need more room for the water. Because they don't look at it and they don't give us the information until they start doing the design. And then what do we have?

I think Travis explained it best when he said, and I might be putting words in your mouth, that what we're doing is we are looking at whether an R1B would be Fit into the character of this community. That's what we're approving. This site plan is just concept. It's just a concept. If we zone at the R1B, I did request these conditions. And they're just, like I said, safety measures. But is it an appropriate development size for that? Doesn't mean they're going to get 40 houses in there if it doesn't work with the water flow. It'll be less homes. That's why I was saying definitely nothing more than 40. Because I don't even see that you can honestly put 40 on here. But I want to have that safety net that is capped there. But is it appropriate? That's really what our question is.

And just to clarify and add to, I think, a lot of the times the things that are coming back before you all are the PUDs, which are very site-specific at the time of rezoning. where this is just a standard zone, so all of that stuff gets flushed out on the back end, the only time you would see them come back before you if they needed to is if for some reason they couldn't comply with one of the conditions. If you approved with conditions tonight and they weren't able to meet one of those conditions, they would have to come back for a rezone of conditions to comply. try to remove it or revise it or something to that effect. But other than that, all the details, things that the PJ was speaking about with the stream buffer moving the pond, all of that gets worked out after rezoning all at the staff level. It would not come back to you.

So we're going to come back at 40 homes with 5,000 square foot blocks.

They would have to comply. 10,000 square feet. 10,000 square feet.

I've got another concern by looking at the plat. There's two lots that have external driveways. And I know that this concept may change. but I have a concern with external driveways on this stretch of road. It's a pretty busy road right there where those two driveways are. It's a pretty good-sized curb, a blind curb. I would probably suggest that all driveways be internal of the development and no external driveways onto City Pond Road. It's pretty dangerous down through there, especially if somebody's going to decide to back out of a driveway. That's not the place to back out. How would you put that condition in there, Mr. Attorney?

Probably just all driveways or any lots within the development shall be in... shall be... She'll be accessible by an interior road to the development. One option y'all do have, because I know we've got some conditions, some of which came up tonight. The city would have to re-advertise over here, so that may not be something y'all want to do. If there are some things that need to get kind of sorted out on this, one option would be to defer. Yeah, I mean, it would be, I mean, I think next month would be sufficient. I don't know. jump the gun and speak for zoning staff if that's not the case. But, I mean, of the conditions, five of them were written and circulated on Thursday. One of them was added. We've got, by my count, two, possibly three, that are being added tonight, which are the trail, the interior driveways, possibly a replanted buffer. I don't want to get too site-specific, but I... maybe worth the conditions being written and put together where they can be circulated in advance instead of me writing them on the fly.

Are you guys good to defer it until next month so that we can write out the rest of these conditions? Okay, I make a motion that we defer this to next month's meeting.

Second. Here we have a motion on the floor with a second. All in favor? Motion 6-0. Thank you. Item number seven is a 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. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to address in favor of it? All right, being none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Being none, we'll close the public hearing, bring it to the table.

I make a motion to approve.

Motion to approve and a second. All in favor? Five to one. All right. Item number eight, 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 Winder regarding the number of retail package liquor stores to provide for an effective date and for other purposes. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? At this time, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table.

I make a motion to approve.

Second. Motion to approve in a second. All in favor? Motion. Item number nine. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance to adopt an amendment to Appendix A comprehensive 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. At this time, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? Being known, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Being known, we'll close the public hearing and bring it to the table. I will entertain a motion. I make a motion to accept. Approved. Motion to approve. Second. Second. All in favor? Motion carries. Item number nine. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance to adopt an amendment to Appendix A comprehensive zoning ordinance. Article three, general provisions of the code of ordinances for the city of Wyandotte regarding landscape and buffer standards, parking requirements, screening requirements.

We just did that one, didn't we? That's the next one.

I thought that sounded familiar. I didn't check. 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. Is there anyone who wishes? We'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor? No. 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 think the motion to approve.

Motion to approve. Second. Second. All in favor?

So hold on. This is to take the pricing down or take the pricing up? It breaks it up. Here it is.

Renee?

So it's going to break it up into three sections.

None of the prices have changed from the previous year except for some revisions to the way that fire charges for its inspections. And then we also added a sidewalk in lieu cost. So that there's one standard rate any time there's an in lieu payment for sidewalks. Everything else is the same as previous.

May I have another motion? Well, actually we interrupted the procedure. Okay. All in favor?

We never voted.

No. All in favor? 6-0. Thank you. Item number 11, consideration of a motion to authorize the mayor to approve the final plat for 203 West Midland Avenue, Winder, Georgia, 30680, also known as tax map parcel WN11266, zoned R-1A, medium density, single family residential, partial into two residential lots in accordance with Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Winder, Georgia, contingent upon a finding of the regulatory compliance by staff and payment of fees. I make a motion to approve. Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Motion carried. Item number 12, consideration of a motion to approve the purchase of four 2026 Chevrolet Tahoe PPV two-wheel drive at a price 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 equipment. A total of $282,980 is requested for the purchase of these police vehicles from the capital budget. This would require a budget amendment. May the motion be approved? Have a motion to approve?

I'll second.

Have a second? All in favor? Motion carries unanimously. Item number 13, consideration of a motion to repeal all employee policies, procedures, and directives that were implemented and issued to the Personnel Policy Manual since January 2021 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. Second. Motion to approve. Second. All in favor? One, two, three. All in favor? Five. All opposed? Five to one. Consideration of a motion to approve the Attendance and Leave Policy 065, the Critical Illness Policy 066, the Maternity and Paternity Policy 067, and the Sick Leave Legacy Policy 065A for the Personnel Policy Manual.

So right now, when we approved 13, that means we have gone back to the 2018 numbers.

It's really 2025. We're going back to the prior one before he changed it.

So that would be 2025. It might have been adopted in 2021, but it's been utilized, or that's what we've been using.

Okay, so it's on this sheet that we got? This one, this first column? Correct. Okay. So if we accept this one, then we're doing 2026 right there, the one that's in yellow. Correct.

I have to look at it again.

And all the other policies that we talked about.

Is Nikki here?

Yes.

I just want to make sure that we're doing the right thing here. Because all we see is 065, 066, 067, 065A. Dr. Graham, sorry.

So let's just be clear that nobody is going to lose what they already have in place.

Okay. You have a question for me? She has a question. Senator Lisa.

The question is or the statement that we want to make is to make sure that nobody lose what they have. So the hours and things that they have right now won't be taken away, won't be discarded. They'll still have that until we can, you know, come up with something else. They're still going to have that. They're just not accumulating like they were.

Thank you for your question, Mayor and Council. It is my understanding, and I'll lean to Attorney Warren to kind of help me on that, because if you voted to approve Item 13... You're reverting back to 2021 or the policies prior to the one that was written in 2025. The one that is in question that was not signed by the previous city administrator and the mayor. So you'll be going back to the one that was prior to me and what I wrote. So in essence, they would be losing what they currently have. Yes.

Accrued time. They would not lose their accrued time. What's in the bank?

What they already have.

What they already have in the bank. Okay, that question. No, they already have. What they already have, no.

Correct.

Right.

But the question I'm asking is, and I think you led to it.

Okay.

Item 14, because we already voted for 13. But item 14, we're asked to approve 065, 066, 067, 065A. But the only thing that we have that has numbers on it is this piece of paper that was handed to us last week. And it says this is what we're proposing. So which one of those is 065, which one is 066, which one is 067? And which one's 065A?

They're on your sheet. Okay.

I'll ask the city administrator to come to the podium.

Yeah, so your sheet is only talking about the PTO vacation time because that was the comparison. The critical illness never existed before today. That's a whole new policy that you were given a copy of. The maternity paternity leave is a brand new policy that did not exist before today. The sick leave has already been frozen based on the 2025 John Lynn policy. So those three are completely different. What you have was just a comparison of the PTO from the written 2018 policy that was in existence all the way up to June of 25, the 25 John Lynn policy, and then the two versions of the 26, the one that we started off with, looked at, said there were some errors there, and then went to the yellow column, which is the one that you're voting on. You could vote on one of those. You can adopt all of them. Meyer says it's your choice based on the motion you make, or you can adopt none of them in which it would be that policy that was in existence up to June of 25.

So if we choose that, if we don't do anything, it reverts back to that first column, correct?

Yes.

Okay. And those... Those accrued hours are not PTO. They are divided into sick and vacation days, correct?

So the 26 takes the 72 hours of sick and the 120 hours at the 10-year mark, combines them all, the PTO, to give you that 192 number, and still keeps it as PTO. Okay. So you can adopt that policy, the hours would be the same, but it would be PTO, or you revert back into such further time and go back to the vacation and sick bucket. But then your question is also, the hours would be the same. It would just be 72 hours for sick and 120 hours for vacation, right? or 192 hours combined.

So you could adopt that one, or you could not adopt that one, and you could adopt the critical illness, the maternity-paternity. The sick leave is a way of just cleaning up, because that policy...

is once you have PTO, there is no more sick time. So I just made that a legacy policy. So as our council member stated, no one loses their sick time or their vacation time because they've got PTO now. So they're not accumulating any new time. If you... vote down the new 65 policy, I would highly recommend you don't approve the legacy sick time because then they would conflict.

Yeah. Does everybody understand what he's saying? Okay.

It may make more sense to just vote them individually because it sounds like there's at least two that really don't have any discussion that we can kind of get past, but 65 and 65A are going to run together.

Right. So, yes, I would say 65 and the legacy policy, which is 65A, those have to go together.

Yes. So the other issue, though, looking at it, the sick leave policy, legacy policy, is that the critical illness? No, critical illness, which is 66. So let me ask you this. Just so I'm clear on that, when a person runs out of sick leave, that's when this would kick in, correct?

When they run out of the total leave, then that one would kick in as that safety net for the employees.

And how long will it go?

It is six weeks, so depending on whether you're with the police department, fire department, or... Regular employees, the hours will vary.

Got it. Here's my point on that. We already pay for short-term disability, correct?

You do, but that's for the employee and not for the employee's family member. So what this is intended to cover... is if you have a spouse, a child, someone related that has to go to the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, you're completely out of time. You go down there, broken bones, you know, anything, hospitalization. But that covers you and your immediate family.

For six weeks.

For six weeks on a rolling 12-week period.

And the way I understand this, because it's not... It's not considered PTO. We don't have to keep that on our budget.

That's absolutely correct. So sick time and the critical illness are not liabilities on your budget.

So I'm also concerned a little bit with the current 65. The numbers have been reduced. The hours earned from... The 2018 or 2020, no, 2021. It's 2018 on the sheet that you gave me, the comparison sheet.

So on the 2018 policy that was effective until June of 25, it was lumped from zero to nine years. And then 10 years plus was the 192 hours. So since we were trying to maintain consistency of first-year employees, one to five years, five to ten, you see that five to ten column is the exact same, but because it was all lumped from zero to nine years, there had to be a little give on the very, very bottom tiers. But you could, you know, if you wanted to stick with the 0 to 9 years as one solid number and 10 plus, the numbers come out equal.

Oh, I see. You're trying to get the total number of hours the same.

Yes. So you see that the people from 5 to 10 years have that, I believe it's 160 hours? It says 160 in the new proposal, right, 065.

But then it's 156.

So it's four years better, four hours better.

But the earlier one isn't.

The earlier ones is reduced by 16 and reduced by something. That, again, is because it was a zero to nine lump sum. And now we're looking at the one year, one to five, five to ten, and ten plus.

So I get that. So why is that? I know why you're trying to do that, but the numbers in that first column, 104 to 80, that's a significant drop. Zero to one year, I guess that's what that is, right?

I would suggest staying with the policy that was in place from June of 2025. That's where some of the issues that you may have.

Oh, I see. And if we do that, we're going to have to make a motion that we – We consider all PTO, all days PTO, and not put it in the two boxes, correct? Because if we want to revisit this, we need to be working off PTO. If we get a new administrator in here that has a different policy and wants to implement it, I think we need to be on PTO. And you would agree, correct?

You know, I think you could argue both sides. I mean, PTO could be used for anything. if the concern is vacation because there's no liability. I've seen policies that basically had an unlimited sick policy but had a set number of vacation. So there's different ways to slice it up. It really depends on what you're trying to get to. If you're trying to get to the ability for the very healthy person to have – five weeks that they can enjoy and do whatever they want with, PTO is the way to go. If you're looking to look for those illnesses, the person that takes the kids to the dentist and all that, then the sick time, because that's better for your budgetary liability policy. So, you know, the argument I've always heard in this line of business is I'm a single individual, I'm healthy, And I can't use my sick time because I don't have multiple kids that I've got to take to various appointments. So I've heard some employees say they were penalized because they couldn't use their sick time. Where PTO is kind of an all-around fairness to both sides.

But now when you call it PTO, it becomes a benefit.

It becomes a book liability benefit. in which you got to budget for it and it stays on your book. And I gave you a quick estimate, which I think is low, $1.2 million that's on your books and PTO. So if every employee walked out the door, the higher that cap, the higher your liability is. So right now it's geared for eight weeks. If you raise that cap to 10 weeks or 12 weeks or 14 weeks, that dollar amount goes up. No, no, no, no. Sick time is a good thing.

No, they still have it. It was frozen. No, I know it's frozen. Do we still have that policy in place?

So.

That's the law of the land right now. That's what we're doing.

If you revert back to vacation and sick, then please do not vote in the legacy sick leave policy because that would just cause me all kinds of confusion. If you want to stick with PTO, you go with what's proposed, and then for the next couple months, talk amongst yourself as council members to see where you want to go from here. If you're not sure, you can revert back, but then what we're doing is we're unfreezing vacation and sick, and we're freezing PTO, and so sometimes as you tweak or change policies and talk about it amongst yourself, But this is the one policy, I think there's maybe three policies that we have that have to go before mayor and council because it affects the budget. Everything else, as we mentioned, the mayor's signature can take care of it within a day.

It worries me that we have this time on the books and we don't know how to do it. If we go back to vacation, do the vacation days, are they the same thing as PTOs? It is. It is. So the vacation is PTO, but it's separated into sick and vacation.

It's separated into sick and vacation. And then at whatever point, if mayor and council decide they want to go back to the days of vacation with a very generous sick policy, then I would recommend that you take the PTO and convert it into vacation because that's what you gave the employees for a year. Right. And then march forward from there. But if you think you may stick with PTO, then you may want to adopt what's in front of you and then start working on it as a group to see where you think there's some changes you want to work with.

So the way I see it, I think we should go back to the, 2018, 2021, 25 before what it was before, but then also call them PTO and not do the legacy at this point. Do you see what I'm saying?

No.

So we go back to the numbers that was before the 2025. Right. And don't call them PTO time. Does that make sense? Everything we get. That's what we were talking about, correct?

So you want to – no, let me see if I understand. So you want to go back to the previous policy that's in existence right now.

That's what it is now.

That's what it is now. However, you want to make one tweak and combine the sick and the vacation, the same 196 – into the policy, I would take a stab at it differently. I would say, take the new policy, because there's some other wording in there that's stronger, take the zero to nine category and the 10 plus, keep it as PTO, which would be the same numbers as what you're trying to get to, but would be cleaner. So instead of going back and combining, I say stay with what you're at, and instead of having a zero to one year, a one to five year, a five to ten, a ten plus, take the old policy, the current one, of zero to nine years, and that would be your 160 hours. and then your 10 plus, which is 92, and so forth and so on for police and fire, and that would get you the same numbers you're trying to do, but it would be a cleaner way of doing it. Would you like me to step over there and point it out to you?

Please. And maybe write it down so I can see it. Are you guys confused? Yeah. So what he's doing is, Because if we don't accept this new policy, right, 065, which is the middle column, then it goes back to vacation and sick. Right. So what do you want to do? You want to go back to 18 and go back into those buckets. Yes. You said it would be difficult to do that. Is that what you said? No, I'm saying it's difficult. Oh. Well, I missed that part because I thought you said the legacy.

One of the questions I have all along is how much is it costing us? It's zero to nine.

Presently. 84.

And how much is it going to cost us to stay the way we are? We put it back in. Until we get a city administrator. And how far are we away from that?

161.82.

No, it wouldn't be a burden.

That would be a priority. Because right now, it's like we're just, the sky's falling. We need to cancel everything. Go back eight years and start over again. That's how I see this is all about. You know, and there's no consideration. There's no anybody sitting here actuarially saying this is what it's costing us. This is what we need to do. I mean, no one sat there. We've gotten a little bit of information. You don't have to leave. You're explaining it to me. I'm just saying that. I mean, we have.

No, I didn't sit with him.

I've never sat with you and talked about these numbers. Ever. Ever. The only time I've heard about this is last week's meeting and this week's meeting. And that's why I said, I got a problem with this. We're just dumping those people because we want to just throw it back. That's why I sent my text message and I said, it's the sky is falling in. What's the difference if we wait two more months and leave it the way it is? But no one's given me any answers. We were told it was $1.2 million, and then you sent an email out that it said it's $16,000 for the last three months is what buyouts were, that email. That's the only thing I've seen. So my question is, why are we going down this railroad so quickly?

Well, we've had discussions about this, Dan, about how much it's going to cost our citizens. That's why Don knows it's giving us a ballpark figure of that $1.2 million. And so we are kind of going holy cow. Let's get this back together. So we asked Don to do this. As a council, we did. So that's my understanding is why we're here right now. It's an uncomfortable conversation. It's really crummy that we have to have this conversation. But at the same time, our citizens... Mm-hmm. We have to answer to them as well. And we cannot continue. I mean, you and I had a discussion coming in about, you know, individuals having thousands of hours of vacation that we would have to pay out. Our citizens can't afford that.

And ultimately, when we got the printout, what was there, two, three people? They had $1,000?

For just this?

It's not on this sheet. It was in the New York Times. Yeah, one or two people.

It depends on which bucket you were looking at.

Yeah.

Because some buckets had 800 and others, the same person, 800.

So it's 1,600.

So going forward, we need to make a decision on something tonight, correct? We do now. If we...

And we have to because the policy that's in place was not voted on. So we have to come up with something. So now.

Well, we just did. We just pushed everything to 2008. Well, it's currently what it was before now.

Who voted? When did y'all vote?

No, you voted. We did. We did.

We voted in 2013. Yes. Which goes to 2018. Which goes to the fact of 2018. Right. Do we want to do that? If we want to. That's what I'm asking. I wanted to clarify. I'm ready to vote.

I mean, if you guys have your doubts, then let your votes reflect that. I'm ready to vote, and I'm not sure if I make a motion to approve.

And that would be all of them? All of them.

Maybe we have a motion on the floor.

Well, hold on a second.

Time out.

The 065, 066, and 065A?

Yes. Because I, hold on, yeah. One second, let me just make sure that I'm not, I did not go and get my coffee tonight, guys, I'm sorry. The motion is to approve.

Don, there would be a policy in place. Following the vote on item 13, it's just a policy that was in place from 18 through June of 25. Right. So that's the policy that's in place right now. Right now.

That's what I'm saying.

And so if you want to do anything else, there's the maternity, paternity, that's new. The critical illness, that's new. Assuming that those two... We're removed from the discussion at the moment. The only question then is really, is there an attendance and leave policy that is going to be modified from the 2018 policy that is already in effect? If you do, then you need the legacy policy. If you don't, then do nothing on the 2018 policy.

So if we do nothing, they go back to having vacation and sick, and there's no such thing as PTO anymore. Correct?

That's correct.

Yes. That's what I'm concerned with. Are we going to call it PTO? See, I don't know what's better. That's another thing. I don't know what's better, PTO calling it. Because if you call it PTO, it becomes now. It's vacation still, but they're separate. So giving them sick days is not on our books, correct? Yes, but do they count the same way PTO does? Are they paid out if they leave? So that's what I'm saying. It's not part of the budget then, the sick leave.

Yes.

Right. That's my point, I guess. If we're going to change everything to PTO, then that's why I was asking about this. Because we're going to go back to sick and vacation right now if we do nothing. Is that what we want to do? That's what I'm asking.

It's when we made it all PTO that it cost us money.

And upped the numbers to outrageous. But that's, again, that's something I think we need to think on in my mind. That's why I said if we can still call them PTO right now but go back to those same numbers, then we can work it that way. Does that make sense?

So are you asking to go back to the numbers of 2018, which is from zero to one year is 104 hours? From 1 to 5 years is 156 hours. From 5 to 9 years, I mean 10 years, 156. 10 to 15 is 192. 15 to 20 is 192. And 20 plus is 192. Are those the hours? Or are you looking at the other ones which break it down to 80 hours, 140, 160, and 192 for everything overall? So that one in the middle, that yellow, is 065. Yes. Okay.

So 2018 is what we're working off right now, but they're in buckets.

My understanding, right? 2018, which is the 104, 156, and then 192s.

Yes, but when you just do nothing, they're in vacation and sick now. That's what they're going to start getting tomorrow, right? So it reverts back to that system, which is, I think, a little bit difficult for us to work through, right? Right. That's what I'm trying to say. So if you go back to those numbers, you're going to have to put something in place that makes all of those PTO. Does that make sense? To make it easier to manage.

They do. They do.

That's the issue that we need to talk about. And that's something that we need somebody with. That's why we need somebody so that is looking at the numbers of this so we can decide how we want that to look. That's why I'm saying right now we're going back to that. So I don't know how that accrues now because their stick leave is frozen. It will be unfrozen, I assume. So they're not accruing any sick leave right now. It's all PTO. But they're going to reopen that. It's frozen right now, and they can still use those sick leave, right? And they've been using them as PTO, correct?

Yes, correct.

But they haven't counted as PTO. Not on the books, right? When they leave, they can't take those. They can't cash those out.

What do you mean? So they still have PTO, but... Yes. Yes. Where the city doesn't police whether you're sick or you're at the beach.

Yes.

It's time off, and it's the employee's job to make sure that they've got time left over if they're sick as opposed to going to the beach. Correct. All right. In 13, that policy was rolled back, item 13, rolled back to what it was pre-June of 25th.

So currently, right now, as we sit, there are no PTO times that they will accrue, except it will be called vacation.

They will accrue vacation and sick right now as of this moment. So then the question is whether you're adopting some other policy, namely the attendance leave or the legacy policy that's in the packet to deal with. accrual going forward. Otherwise, if you do nothing, it just stays the way it was for six plus years. And that doesn't preclude you from doing something else next month, the following month, next year, never.

Right. So do we want to adopt this, the middle one, so that it stays PTO, or do we want to go back to just buckets? That's the question. Essentially. And the hours are different, but they're PTO hours. And we can revisit it later on if we wanted to change the hours.

Why...

Just for me, why in God's green earth would someone take our sick time and our leave time and make it all PTO so it's a dollar value on a budget and not being used for sick time and leave time. It's just being used for all PTO. You can not come to work. You can come to work. Why would anyone just out of the blue change all the policies into one thing like that? Am I missing something? I've worked 40 years, and we had sick time. We had vacation time. Nobody had all PTO time that they could just stack it all up. But evidently we did this in the last couple of years. And now we're questioning whether we should be going back and doing the thing that everybody in every business does. They have sick time for when you're sick. And I don't understand what happened.

I don't have a good answer. But we've got to decide something. You guys got any? Travis, you got anything? You know how you're going to vote? You want to make a motion? Give me the motion. What's the motion to accept? The 65?

I mean, I want to go back to 2018.

So your motion.

She needs to amend her motion. I don't even know what I did with mine.

Dawn, what's your motion?

What's different about 065 under item 14 compared to the 2018 version?

It never, it was never, that's, the 14 is all new, correct?

The one that's being proposed?

Number 14, 065.

Yes, the difference between that and the previous policy or we say the current policy, is that that took an attempt to turn it into PTO and not revert back to vacation and sick. That's the difference. So if you want it to go back to vacation and sick, then the policy that was in effect until June of 25 is the path you want to go on. If you want to keep it as PTO and then tweak later, the new one is the path you want to go on. So it just comes down to council's decision of are you looking to go back to a vacation sick type of policy or PTO policy?

So if you do nothing tonight, then it will be one bucket for sick, one bucket for vacation.

Okay, because that's what we just approved is 13, right? With going back to 22. Correct. Okay, so that's where it currently stands. I withdraw my motion.

Is it just those two, which was 156 and 192?

Or is it in 2018?

Yes, it would be 156 for zero to nine years, or zero to just shy of 10 years. And then 10 years plus would be 192 hours total. But if you're looking at the vacation to sick, it's 120 hours to 72 sick. Or 84 to 72. So zero to nine years was 84 hours of vacation and 72 sick. And then 10 plus years was 120 and 72. The sick never changed. It was the same amount of sick regardless. And then police was 96 and 144, and fire was 144 and 216.

So we're going to move away from PTO? Is that the idea? Move to vacation and... Because I can tell you, I don't think that our departments want that. I think it's easier to manage the other way, correct? The PTO are easier to manage? It's a preference. It's a hard decision. And we're at a point where you're looking at vacation days, which count as PTO, In this one we're in now, this divided up, when you look at this column, that 104 is sick and vacation, correct? Yes. Just so I can compare apples to apples. Yes. So it's combined. It's combined. Okay. So you're combining those together. So that's why it's 80 on the right in the one that's highlighted because those are actual vacation days.

Yeah, because we were comparing PTOs, so I just wanted to combine to show you what it equaled out to. But again, it's 84 vacation and 72 sick. And that should bring you to the 156 number.

Yeah, so what helps is that if they get catastrophically ill, that's what the policy, the catastrophic illness policy is about. Correct? Correct.

I'm sorry.

So to help that, that number is lower, but the other policy is in place.

Yeah, and that's six weeks that rolls every 12 months. So the way I explained it to some employees that came and spoke to me, that if your spouse is, you need to take the six weeks for your spouse in year one, You've got six weeks. Let's say in year two or three, your child gets sick. You've got to take the six weeks. You get the six weeks again. It just keeps rolling every 12 months. So it's not a six weeks and you're done. And then also with the maternity-paternity, it also rolls. So if you have a kid in year one and a kid in year three, you get two weeks and two weeks. But again, those don't count against your liabilities because they're considered sick leave. And I do want to explain something about item 13 that you voted on. That was housekeeping because these policies were not adopted, so they didn't exist. There was just a housekeeping measure. Even if you would have voted against that one, they still would not have been adopted. So I just want to clarify, you did not box yourself in by voting yes in the previous one. Yes, sir. Unless you come up with an alternative.

There's no motion on the floor at this time. Is there a motion? All right.

I'm not here with the magic answer or solution, but just sitting back and listening to some of the comments, if there is a possibility that there's going to be some change in the near future and it go back to PTO, I would strongly recommend not reverting back to sick and vacationing then going back to PTO. That is a nightmare for us as managers and a nightmare for HR. So if that's a possibility, which I've kind of heard that thrown out there some, I would strongly recommend not going back to sick and vacation separate and then two months going back to PTO. I don't know if that helps your train of thought any. I know it's I know it's kind of like you all feel like you're under pressure and you have to make the final decision tonight. I personally would like to see a little bit more look into it, conversation, involve maybe some department heads and counsel and HR to do some further research to come up with a final answer. I know you've got to come up with something tonight. But I would not go back to sick and vacation separate and then go back to PTO two or three months. That's creating a nightmare for a lot of us.

Chief, I have a question for you.

And the reason why you're saying that is because of shift coverage when it comes to being able to cover those shifts with the sick and vacation separate.

No, not necessarily. There's some information that's been thrown out that – We have buckets of sick and vacation, and those were frozen from what we had when we went to PTO. And so those do not grow any. They do not build. They do not accumulate. And when somebody leaves, they do not get paid out for the sick leave. That's the policy before. It's the policy that we were under over the last year. So there's not going to be like somebody being paid out for thousands of hours. There were some people that have large amounts of sick leave balances, but they would not be paid out for those. They would only be paid out for the vacation that they had on the books, which was capped, and any PTO they had, which was capped. So for us, what I'm just saying is we've got two buckets of sick and vacation, and then we froze that and went to the PTO. And then if the city goes back to the sick and vacation, you start building those back together. And then if you go back to PTO, it's just going to create a nightmare, especially for HR and finance, but even for department heads. So I still would like to see us do some little further research and analysis into it and come up with a more finite thing. I know you've got to come up with something tonight, but if the chance that we're going to end up with PTO, I would not move off PTO until you're 100% sure. That's my two cents worth.

I don't have an answer because the changes were made without my knowledge. I do know that we have to look at expenditures down the road and the amount of money that's going to end up in the bucket, which could affect us in a number of different ways. I appreciate all of you, your presence. We hopefully we will Have a new administrator on board quicker than longer. The one thing that I would hope that we don't do is make two or three changes within a month of trying to get it right. I will certainly speak up for the employees and say that We probably have the best employees of any agency or community our size around us. And I don't want to see us lose anyone. We also obligated not only to our employees, to the citizens. So we have a dilemma facing us. If there is a vote tonight, I don't believe it will be a permanent vote. Don has worked real hard on this, on trying to balance numbers and work out the best solution for the present time. As you know, I don't have a vote until... We vote on something, then I tie. We tie, so. Council, go ahead. I see that thing.

So, Don, after hearing Chief's talk, it would be best if we're considering this as a temporary decision until a permanent city admin is in place. It would be best to change it to PT, or to... accept this one as PTO, the 2018 as PTO?

Yes, I would say the least painful vote would be to adopt the one that you were provided that has the PTO in it. That way, that causes no additional work for finance and HR as far as converting the buckets. That part would be the cleanest.

So that would be 065A and 065A?

That is correct.

Okay, are you all ready? Do you all want to adopt that?

Don, you'd need both, ideally.

I would, yes. You would need to go ahead and do the 65 and 65A together. And then if you choose the clinical illness and the paternity one, those are separate. But 65 and 65A need to go together because that's how they were written.

I mean, my only thing is, I mean, I would be completely fine with the maternity, paternity leave and the sick leave legacy policy. I just, I mean, being a government employee myself, I definitely empathize with the fact that this does affect every single employee in the way that they're going to be able to use any of their time off, how they're going to strategically use it, or if something unforeseen comes up, what they would be able to use and how it would benefit them. And at the same time, I have to remember the fact that I was entrusted to steward the taxpayers' money responsibly, and I'm not saying that it's not responsible to make sure that you guys are covered. But, I mean, at the same time, if people leave and they're getting payouts on their PTO and, again, to... Mr. Tom's point if they do you know if for whatever reason something happens in Massachusetts I've got to think about that so I don't know if anybody would entertain a motion to approve 14 for 66 and 67 but I'm just throwing those thoughts out there I'm not making a motion just throwing those thoughts out there

I make a motion to accept 14 as stated.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?

And by acceptance, we approve all four policies.

Is there a second? Motion to ask. I will go out on a limb and say this.

is there another motion being made it would be easier to go back to like we resorted back to the 18 is instead of doing to keep the hours the way they are where the vacation is sick but instead of calling that vacation sick just to a combined PTA is that what the hold up is

That was to be my comment, that whatever we do tonight to manage the current situation, it can be adjusted as soon as we get the city administrator on board. And I can assure you that will be our priority. We have to look at our numbers. We have to look at our income. Yeah.

Okay, Chris, let's try this again. I make a motion that we approve number 14 as is written, which would be the 065, 066, 067, and 065A policy. Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor? One, two, three, four. Motion carries. I assure you that this will be a priority. Guys, ladies.

Item 15.

Consideration of a motion for approval to proceed with the issuance of a request for qualifications and the subsequent procurement of preliminary engineering services associated with GDOT P10021599, the Jackson Street at May Street, SR8 pedestrian bridge project. The preliminary engineering services generally include project management, surveys, studies, conceptual plans, development, right-of-way needs, determinations, utility coordination, and the development of final design documents. The total anticipated cost for preliminary engineering services is $1,650,000. with the city's funding commitment being $330,000, and the Georgia Department of Transportation's commitment of being $1,320,000. We have a motion to approve. Second. We have a second. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five. Five to one. Motion carries. At this time, I'll entertain a motion for executive session.

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion and a second for executive session. All in favor? One, two, three, four, five.

Everybody.

At this time, I'll call a 10-minute break. Motion to come out of executive.

Hold on, wait. She's not ready.

Second. Okay, we're ready. I'll make a motion to come out of executive session.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. We have a motion and a second to exit executive session. All in favor? Motion carried. We adjourn.