YOUR CITY COUNCIL IS VOTING TONIGHT ON THINGS YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO NOTICE

WOODSTOCK CITY COUNCIL — TONIGHT'S MEETING

Monday, February 23, 2026  ·  7:00 PM  ·  The Chambers at City Center, 8534 Main Street

Tonight's agenda is long, and most of it will pass quickly with little public debate. That's by design — the "consent agenda" bundles many items into a single vote. Several of those items involve significant public money, contracts with private firms, and decisions that affect Woodstock residents directly.

This guide explains what's happening, why it matters, and how you can make your voice heard. You do not need to be an expert to participate. You just need to show up.

HOW PUBLIC COMMENT WORKS TONIGHT

There are three moments tonight when residents can speak on the record:

• General Public Comment (Item 5) — You may speak for up to 3 minutes on any topic. This is the appropriate time to raise concerns about consent agenda items, since those items rarely get individual discussion.

• Public Hearing: Impact Fees (Item 7.1) — You may speak specifically about how growth pays for infrastructure.

• Public Hearing: Water, Sewer & Stormwater Fees (Item 7.2) — You may speak specifically about proposed fee changes.

Important: Outside of these three moments, public comment is not permitted on individual agenda items. If you want to raise a concern about a consent agenda item — including the tree fine reductions or police patrol spending — you must do so during General Public Comment (Item 5).

1. THREE TREE FINE REDUCTIONS IN ONE MONTH — INCLUDING TWO TONIGHT

What Is Happening

Tonight, City Council will vote on two separate appeals from property owners who cut down protected trees without permits and are asking to have their fines reduced.

• 306 Winchester Way: The original fine was $22,200 for cutting down five protected trees. Staff recommends converting this to a replanting requirement — meaning the property owner pays nothing.

• 142 Bentley Parkway: The original fine was $9,600 for cutting down three protected trees without permits or approved plans. Staff again recommends replacing the fine with a replanting requirement. This case was tabled at the August 2025 meeting and is back tonight.

The Critical Context

These two cases are not isolated. At the January 26, 2026 City Council meeting — just four weeks ago — Council reduced a $50,100 fine for the illegal removal of 50 protected trees at 1000 Churchill Court down to just the permit fee. The property owner in that case essentially paid nothing for removing 50 trees.

That means Council has now reduced or eliminated tree removal fines in at least three separate cases in a single month, collectively wiping out more than $81,000 in fines. All three involved property owners who removed protected trees without the required permits.

Why This Matters: Woodstock's tree protection ordinance exists to preserve the tree canopy — a meaningful quality-of-life issue for residents. If fines are routinely waived or converted to replanting requirements, the ordinance becomes toothless. Property owners and developers quickly learn that the penalty for cutting protected trees without a permit is, at worst, being told to plant new ones. That is not a deterrent. It's an incentive to ask forgiveness rather than permission.

The Arbor Day Problem: Council is recognizing Arbor Day at the very same meeting where it is voting to reduce two more tree fines. This follows the same pattern from the last meeting. The city proclaims its commitment to trees in public while quietly waiving consequences for those who cut them down.

We are not suggesting that replanting is never an appropriate remedy. But when fine reductions happen repeatedly, without a clear and public standard explaining when they are appropriate, residents are right to ask whether the ordinance is being enforced consistently — or whether it depends on who is asking.

✦  What to Say

During General Public Comment (Item 5), you may raise both tree appeals. Suggested talking points:

• "On January 26, Council reduced a $50,100 fine for illegally removing 50 trees to just the permit fee. Tonight we have two more reductions. That's three cases and over $81,000 in fines effectively eliminated in one month. I'd like to understand what the standard is for when fines are enforced and when they are waived."

• "What is the difference, financially, between the original fines and the cost of replanting? Is the city making residents and developers whole on this, or is replanting less expensive than the fine?"

• "Is there a written policy for when tree fine appeals are granted? If not, residents have no way to know whether enforcement is consistent."

2. $20,000 FROM CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR PRIVATE-STYLE POLICE PATROL

What Is Happening

Council is being asked to approve a $20,000 budget amendment to fund dedicated parking deck patrols — 16 hours per week, with up to an additional 27 hours available "if required." The money is coming from Council's contingency fund, a pool of money set aside for unexpected needs, and is categorized as "special duty pay."

Why This Is Concerning

"Special duty" pay is a structure typically used when private businesses or events hire off-duty police officers for security. Using it for a city-owned parking deck blurs the line between standard public safety responsibilities and a supplemental, for-hire model.

This is part of a broader pattern. The city has already contracted private management for its downtown parking program. At the February 9 Council meeting, it was disclosed that the parking program has a $677,000 gap between what the city projected it would earn and what it has actually brought in. The General Fund — money that comes from residents' taxes — is already covering that shortfall through an interfund loan. Now Council is being asked to spend an additional $20,000 in contingency funds on parking-related police patrol.

Why This Matters: Every dollar spent from contingency funds or transferred from the General Fund is a dollar that could go toward parks, infrastructure, or other public services. When the city outsources parking operations to a private company and then separately funds police patrols for the facility, residents should understand the full cost — not just the headline number on tonight's agenda.

Reasonable questions for Council:

• What specific problem is this solving? Is there documented crime or safety data showing the parking deck is unsafe without dedicated patrols?

• Why are contingency funds being used for an ongoing operational cost rather than a true emergency?

• Is this temporary, or is Council committing to this expense indefinitely?

• What is the total public cost of the parking program when you add together the private management contract, the General Fund loan covering revenue shortfalls, and this additional patrol funding?

✦  What to Say

During General Public Comment (Item 5):

• "The city's parking program has a $677,000 shortfall that taxpayers are already covering. Tonight we're adding $20,000 more from contingency funds for parking deck police patrols. Before approving this, can Council explain the total public cost of the parking program and whether this patrol expense is permanent?"

• "What is the documented problem this is solving? Has there been a spike in crime or safety complaints that justifies this expense?"

3. COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A LAND PURCHASE THAT ALREADY HAPPENED

What Is Happening

Item 6.3 asks Council to "ratify" — meaning formally approve after the fact — the completed purchase of two parcels of land for the Neese Road improvement project. Combined, these parcels cost $106,600. The purchase has already been executed. Council is approving it retroactively.

Why This Is Concerning

City Council exists, in part, to provide oversight of how public money is spent before it is spent. When staff executes a significant transaction and then brings it to Council for approval afterward, that oversight function is bypassed. There may be legitimate operational reasons this happened — time-sensitive negotiations, for example — but that should be stated on the record, not assumed.

Why This Matters: Retroactive ratification is not automatically wrongdoing. But if it becomes routine, residents lose the ability to weigh in before public money changes hands. The question is whether this is an exception or a pattern.

✦  What to Say

During General Public Comment (Item 5):

• "Item 6.3 asks Council to approve a $106,600 land purchase that has already been completed. Can staff explain why this was executed before formal Council approval? Is this standard practice for right-of-way acquisitions, and if so, what oversight exists?"

4. A 'COMPLETE' SIDEWALK PROJECT THAT NEEDS $115,000 MORE

What Is Happening

The Dupree Road Connection sidewalk project — part of the "Walkable Woodstock" initiative — is listed in tonight's agenda as 100% complete. Council is nonetheless being asked to approve a $115,000 budget amendment to cover additional costs: unforeseen right-of-way acquisition costs, a change order, and ADA-related concrete repairs at bridge transition points.

Why This Is Concerning

Budget amendments after a project is already finished are a red flag for project management accountability. The legitimate question here is not whether the costs are real — they may be entirely valid — but why they were not identified and addressed before the project reached completion, and whether the city has adequate financial controls to prevent this from happening again.

Residents should also note that this amendment funds the additional costs using TAD (Tax Allocation District) revenue transferred to SPLOST VII — a technical funding mechanism that is valid but not always easy for the public to follow. That complexity can make it harder to notice when project budgets grow.

✦  What to Say

During General Public Comment (Item 5):

• "A project listed as 100% complete is receiving a $115,000 budget increase tonight. When were these overrun costs identified? What changes are being made to how project costs are tracked so this doesn't happen repeatedly?"

5. CONSULTANT CONTRACTS: ARCADIS AND POND & COMPANY

Arcadis — Work Authorization #58

Tonight's agenda includes a work authorization with Arcadis — a private engineering and consulting firm — for up to $10,000 for construction review services on the Towne Lake Parkway widening project. The number looks small, but context matters.

This is Work Authorization #58, meaning the city has entered into at least 58 separate work authorizations under its contract with Arcadis. The city also had a separate Arcadis change order for the I-575 project approved in July 2025. The city's relationship with this firm is extensive, and the cumulative spending under their master contract is not visible in tonight's agenda.

• What has the city paid Arcadis in total under the current master contract?

• How many of those work authorizations included overtime billing, which this one explicitly permits?

Pond & Company — Noonday Creek Trailhead

Council is authorizing negotiations with Pond & Company for the design of the Noonday Creek Trailhead. Pond previously developed the original concept plan for the same project. The final contract will return to Council for approval.

The concern here is not that Pond did something wrong. It's that selecting the firm that did the concept design for the implementation design reduces competitive pressure. The city should be transparent about how many firms responded to the RFQ and why Pond was selected.

6. CONCERT CONTRACTS: WHAT THE FULL COST ACTUALLY IS

Council is approving band contracts for the 2026 Summer Concert Series. One example contract shows a $22,500 performance fee with a 50% deposit due immediately and full payment required "rain or shine." Production services may be invoiced separately.

Public concerts are a legitimate use of city resources. But residents deserve to know the total cost — talent fees, production, security, police overtime, setup and cleanup — not just the talent fee listed on the agenda. And they should know whether there is any revenue offset from ticket sales, sponsorships, or concessions, and what happens financially if events are canceled.

7. TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS: IMPACT FEES AND WATER/SEWER RATES

Impact Fees (Public Hearing — You May Speak)

Impact fees are one-time charges paid by new development to offset the strain it places on city infrastructure — roads, parks, utilities, public safety. Tonight's hearing involves an update to Woodstock's impact fee program.

Why This Matters: When impact fees are set too low, existing residents effectively subsidize new development — paying through their taxes for infrastructure that growth demands. With Woodstock's development pressure, this question is not academic.

✦  What to Say

During the Impact Fee Public Hearing (Item 7.1), you may formally speak on the record:

• "Are the updated impact fees sufficient to cover the actual infrastructure costs tied to new development, or will existing residents be expected to make up the difference through their taxes?"

• "How were fee levels determined? Were they based on an independent cost study, and is that study publicly available?"

• "How do Woodstock's proposed impact fees compare to what neighboring cities charge?"

Water, Sewer & Stormwater Fees (Public Hearing — You May Speak)

Council is also holding a public hearing on amendments to the fee schedule for water, sewer, and stormwater services. Changes to these fees affect household utility bills and development costs.

✦  What to Say

During the Water, Sewer & Stormwater Fee Public Hearing (Item 7.2):

• "Are these fee increases tied to specific capital needs or infrastructure deficits? Can Council explain what the additional revenue will fund?"

• "Are residential and commercial rates being adjusted proportionally, or is one class of customer bearing more of the increase?"

8. EXECUTIVE SESSION — CLOSED-DOOR DISCUSSION

Tonight's meeting ends with an Executive Session covering personnel, litigation, and real estate. Executive sessions are permitted under Georgia law for these topics. But given this city council's history of significant decisions emerging from closed-door discussions without adequate public context — including the Urban Redevelopment Agency votes in November 2025 that were handled in a post-election special meeting with no public explanation — residents should watch what happens immediately after the session concludes.

If Council takes votes or makes announcements about property, litigation settlements, or personnel immediately following the executive session, note what those decisions are and ask for the public record.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

No single item on tonight's agenda proves misconduct. But taken together, they reflect patterns that residents of Woodstock have seen repeatedly:

• Money approved after it's already been spent (the Neese Road right-of-way ratification)

• Budgets that grow after projects are supposedly finished (the Dupree Road sidewalk)

• Fine reductions that systematically benefit those who violate ordinances — three in one month, all involving trees

• City functions being funded through private-style pay structures (the parking deck patrol) while the underlying parking program runs a $677,000 deficit

• Consultant relationships so extensive that cumulative spending is not visible in any single vote (Arcadis Work Authorization #58)

• Closed-door sessions followed by unexplained votes, as occurred with the Urban Redevelopment Agency in November 2025, where the spouses of two sitting City Council members were reappointed to a board that handles millions in city financing — in a special meeting called the day after an election, with no public explanation

These are governance concerns. They are not partisan. A city council of any political stripe should be managing public money transparently, enforcing ordinances consistently, and making decisions in public.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Tonight

• Attend the meeting at 8534 Main Street, Woodstock. Doors open before 7:00 PM.

• Sign up to speak during General Public Comment (Item 5). You will have 3 minutes. Pick one issue and make it specific — questions are more effective than accusations.

• If you care about the tree fine reductions, the impact fee hearing, or the water rate hearing, those are the highest-priority moments for public comment tonight.

• You do not have to speak to make a difference. Showing up and being counted matters.

After Tonight

• File an Open Records Request. The city is required by Georgia law to provide public records. You can request: the full Arcadis master contract and payment history; the parking program proformas and the communications around the $677,000 revenue shortfall; the basis for each tree fine appeal recommendation; and the agenda and minutes from any Urban Redevelopment Agency meetings. Contact the City Clerk at Robyn Adams, City of Woodstock, 8534 Main Street, Woodstock, GA 30188.

• Follow up in writing. If a Council member or staff member says something at tonight's meeting that doesn't add up, you can email the city and ask for clarification in writing. Written responses become part of the public record.

• Come to the next meeting. Consistent presence is more effective than one-time outrage.

• Share this guide. Forward it to neighbors, post it to your neighborhood group, and encourage others to attend. City Council decisions are made whether or not the public is watching. Your job is to make sure they know you are.

This report was prepared by Woodstock Community Action Network (Woodstock CAN) for informational purposes. It is based on the official City of Woodstock agenda packet for February 23, 2026, and the public record from recent council meetings. Woodstock CAN is a nonpartisan community organization. We do not represent any candidate, party, or business interest. Our only interest is an accountable, transparent, and responsive local government.

Learn more, join our mailing list, and find meeting updates at: woodstockcan.org