Ordinance 2026-15 — REZONING REQUEST
Voted YES
This rezoning request corrected the zoning designation for property that has operated as a business for approximately 25–30 years. The property was still zoned residential even though it has long been used commercially. The approved zoning classification is General Commercial.
Ordinance 2026-16 — CITY BUDGET
Voted NO
I could not support the budget ordinance because the budget was not in final form. I cannot vote on a document when council has not been provided the final version and does not know exactly what is included in the final budget document. Council requested a final copy for review and was advised it would be available within the week.
Telecommunications Franchise Fee Ordinance
No vote taken — Ordinance Tabled
The public hearing for the proposed franchise fee ordinance involving a telecommunications company was not listed on the meeting agenda. The City Code of Ordinances requires a public hearing before consideration of this type of ordinance. Due to the procedural issue, the ordinance was tabled and will probably be on the June agenda.
Pertaining to the Motion Made by Justin Alexander:
Youtube link to council meeting: (move to the 56 minute mark)
Councilmember Justin Alexander made a motion before the close of the meeting for the Rules and Procedures Ordinance to be placed on the June meeting agendas. The motion passed by a 5–2 vote, with the mayor and Councilmember Tom O’Shields voting against it. However, under an existing Easley ordinance allowing two members to object, the majority vote was effectively overridden.
The city attorney presented council with a legal opinion regarding the matter. During discussion, Councilmember Alexander stated it was not a good idea to defy an opinion of the city attorney. The mayor responded that “it was an opinion and not an ordinance.”
Throughout the discussion, the mayor repeatedly characterized the proposed Rules and Procedures Ordinance as an attempt to change the form of government. Councilmember Alexander clarified that the ordinance had nothing to do with changing the form of government and she disagreed.
The mayor specifically referenced Page 2, Sections 30.20(A) and (B), claiming the proposal shifted administrative duties to council. However, Section 30.20(A) is existing language already contained in the ordinance, while Section 30.20(B) only adds provisions regarding work sessions.
Additionally, on Page 2, Section 30.21(A) simply adds details regarding lack of quorum procedures to existing text, while Section 30.21(B) removes language concerning a “proceeding of Council” statement.
The council also has the ability to call a special meeting to discuss and vote on the ordinance. During the meeting, the mayor stated that holding a special meeting would cost the city a significant amount of money. However, the estimated attorney cost would be under $700, not the $1,500 figure she stated publicly and no other expenses will occur.
In addition, council is not requiring full staff attendance for a special meeting. The only required staff member would be the city clerk for the purpose of recording minutes. As a salaried employee, the clerk could also be provided compensatory time off.
The refusal to place a council-supported item on the agenda despite majority support further demonstrates the ongoing concerns regarding leadership, communication, and a willingness to work collaboratively with council.
I have received several inquiries about these Rules and Procedures. After reviewing copies of the document, the residents agreed there is nothing in the proposed ordinance that changes the form of government.