How I Voted at the Feb 9, 2026 Council Meeting
(These are my own views and explanations of my votes.)
Voted YES – Second Reading – Ordinance 2026‑06 (UDO Updates)
This ordinance corrects scrivener’s errors, updates parking material standards, and adds a change‑tracking table so everyone can see which development rules apply to which projects.
I continue to be concerned that the city spent nearly $80,000 on a consulting firm to create the UDO, only for our new city planner to find mistakes and missing pieces that now require correction.
Voted YES – Second Reading – Ordinance 2026‑07 (Opioid Recovery Fund)
This accepts $113,617 from the Opioid Recovery Fund. It’s a worthwhile grant that supports important recovery efforts, and I fully support it.
Postponed – First Reading – Ordinance 2026‑08 (Rescinding Ordinance 2025‑12)
This ordinance was postponed. It is not an attempt to defund the police.
The goal is to avoid duplicating services and to save taxpayer money if the current arrangement continues.
Councilmember Alexander said, “This is a complex issue involving multiple city and county departments,” and I agree. Hopefully it will be resolved by the next meeting.
Ordinance Died – Ordinance 2026‑09 (Parking Lot Funding Source)
This would have repealed the previous approval to spend $130,000 from the Transportation Impact Fee fund for a parking lot.
Council agrees the city can build the parking lot, but we should use a different funding source. Transportation impact fees are meant for moving traffic, not parked cars.
The city attorney believes the law allows using impact fees for parking lots. I disagree, especially since the impact fee study specifically focuses on improving traffic movement.
Voted YES – First Reading – Ordinance 2026‑10 (Parks Zoning District)
This simply creates a proper zoning category for parks.
For example, JB Red Owens is currently zoned R‑10 (residential), which makes no sense. This ordinance fixes that. An easy yes.
Voted YES – First Reading – Ordinance 2026‑11 (Tree & Plant List)
This adopts a recommended list of native trees and plants. Our city planner worked with an Easley resident to ensure the list reflects what grows best in our area.
Voted YES – First Reading – Ordinance 2026‑12 (Safe Streets & Roads Grant)
This accepts $120,000 for a Safe Streets and Roads grant. It will help improve road safety.
There is a $30,000 “in‑kind contribution” that was described as non‑cash, yet $30,000 is being transferred out of the general fund. I’m seeking clarification on why that is happening.
Voted YES – Resolution 2026‑02 (Planning Commission Appointment)
I supported appointing Ginny McJunkin to the Planning Commission. She regularly attends both Planning Commission and Council meetings and cares deeply about Easley. She will be an asset.
Voted YES – Resolution 2026‑03 (Comprehensive Plan Commitment)
This resolution reaffirms the council’s commitment to the comprehensive plan.
To me, this felt unnecessary, the council has always been committed. The city administration should be the ones reaffirming their commitment, since some development decisions have not aligned with the plan.
Voted YES – Resolution 2026‑04 (Accepting Roads from Olive St LLC)
I usually vote NO on adding more roads to the city network because we already struggle to maintain the roads we have.
However, the city has made agreements with developers to accept roads if they meet our standards, and I would be outvoted regardless.
Voted YES – Resolution 2026‑05 (Revised Acceptable Use Policy for Elected Officials)
The previous council approved an AUP late last year even though three members were about to be replaced. Some of us felt it restricted free speech, but it passed anyway.
When the new council took office, the three new members refused to sign the acknowledgment and were denied laptops to access their email. Justin Alexander and I also did not sign, but we still had access to email and were never told to return our laptops.
Most of us were unhappy with the policy. We drafted a new one, but it was rejected.
The final compromise removed the most problematic sections, including the part that made council members financially responsible for “unacceptable use.” City employees are not held to that standard, and neither should council members be. We are adults, and none of us would intentionally introduce viruses or misuse city systems.