Why Did Woodstock Re-Vote a Major Redevelopment Action the Day After the Election?

Written By Martha Jean

Bank bids arrived at 3:33 PM. The special meeting started at 7:30 PM. City officials have not explained the timing.

On November 5, the day after the municipal election, the Mayor and Council held a brief special called meeting. In that meeting they:

  • Reappointed Melissa Potts to the Urban Redevelopment Agency

  • Reappointed Nancy Wolfe to the Urban Redevelopment Agency

  • Rescinded the first readings of two Urban Redevelopment Agency related ordinances handled on October 27

  • Reintroduced and re-voted the first readings for those same items

The meeting lasted only a few minutes. There was no detailed explanation during the meeting itself about why these actions needed to be handled that night. To understand the sequence, I reviewed the published materials and asked city officials for clarification.

Here is what can be verified now.

1. The October 27 agenda did not list any Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) items

The public agenda packet for the October 27 Council meeting contains:

  • no Urban Redevelopment Agency items

  • no redevelopment plan amendments

  • no fire bond financing items

  • no related staff memos

Residents reading the packet had no notice that URA related first readings would occur.

Mayor Michael Caldwell stated that the URA and fire bond items “had been advertised for that meeting” but were “accidentally left off the published agenda.” No advertisement or backup documentation has been provided yet. These records have been requested through an Open Records Request.

2. What the Urban Redevelopment Agency is supposed to be

Based on state law, the Urban Redevelopment Agency has the authority to:

  • approve redevelopment plan amendments

  • issue redevelopment revenue bonds

  • enter into intergovernmental agreements

  • carry out public projects inside designated redevelopment areas

These are significant financial powers. URA decisions help shape long term debt, public projects, and redevelopment activity inside the city.

But this is only the legal framework.
It does not tell residents how Woodstock’s URA actually operates.

What we still do not know about the Woodstock URA

The City of Woodstock publishes almost no information about this agency.
Residents cannot see:

  • a roster of members

  • term lengths or expiration dates

  • meeting agendas

  • minutes

  • bylaws

  • appointment criteria

  • an application process

  • redevelopment area maps

  • a calendar showing when the URA meets

  • past actions or votes

There is no functioning URA page that lists these records. There are no downloadable agendas or minutes. There are no posted term expirations or appointment notices.

So while state law defines the URA’s powers, the public has no practical way to follow what Woodstock’s URA is doing.

This lack of documentation is central to why this issue matters.

3. Who serves on the URA

According to the mayor, the current members are:

  • Christopher Brazelton, Executive Director of Woodstock Arts

  • Nancy Wolfe, who also volunteers with the Woodstock Public Safety Foundation

  • Melissa Potts, spouse of Councilmember David Potts

The mayor wrote that Potts and Wolfe “had been serving for years” and that their terms expired on October 29, though he did not have the term dates on hand. The city has not provided appointment packets, term records, or documentation explaining how members are selected.

4. Why the city held the November 5 special meeting

Under Georgia law, ordinances require two readings at separate meetings before final approval. The October 27 actions were intended to serve as the first readings, with second readings scheduled for November 10.

The mayor explained the November 5 special meeting this way:

  • The URA and fire bond first readings were intended for October 27

  • They were left off the published agenda

  • He asked the city attorney whether the October 27 votes were valid

  • He states that the attorney emailed him and City Manager Jeff Moon on October 28

  • According to the mayor, the attorney said the October 27 actions were “likely sufficient” but recommended redoing them “in an abundance of caution”

  • The bond financing schedule assumed a second reading on November 10

  • To keep that November 10 schedule, the first readings needed to occur before that date

  • The special called meeting on November 5 was held to redo the first readings

The October 28 attorney email referenced by the mayor has not yet been provided and is included in the Open Records Request. City Manager Jeff Moon wrote separately that he had no additional information to add.

5. The bond financing calendar and bid timing

The mayor’s explanation focused on legal caution.
The Chief Financial Officer’s explanation focused on the financing calendar.

CFO Ron Shelby stated:

  • Bank bids for the fire station financing were due November 5

  • These bids contain short term rate commitments

  • The winning bid had to be included in the November 10 meeting materials

  • Restarting the process would delay the issuance and likely affect pricing

  • Bond validation requires statutory public advertising

  • The sequence therefore had to stay on schedule

In a follow up, he clarified that the bids were received at 3:33 PM on November 5.

He also wrote that the city does not maintain internal written guidelines for URA financing calendars and could not confirm whether this sequence matched past practice. The last URA financing occurred in 2017, before his tenure.

6. The timing question

The special meeting took place at 7:30 PM on November 5.

Based on the city’s statements:

  • Legal counsel prompted the need to redo the first readings

  • The bond calendar required the second reading to stay on November 10

  • The first readings needed to occur before that date

  • The bank bids arrived at 3:33 PM, nearly four hours before the meeting

City officials have not explained why the re-vote needed to occur at 7:30 PM that evening rather than earlier that day, the next day, or at another time before November 10.

7. Clerk response

The City Clerk, who was out sick when asked about these issues, wrote that the mayor and CFO had answered my questions. No additional details were provided about:

  • how the October 27 agenda was prepared

  • how the omission occurred

  • whether check procedures exist for agenda accuracy

  • how URA term dates or vacancies are tracked

These questions are included in the Open Records Request.

8. Comparison with Cherokee County

Cherokee County confirmed that it does not have an Urban Redevelopment Agency or a comparable redevelopment bond authority. County level development decisions are handled through:

  • the Planning Commission

  • the Zoning Board of Appeals

  • two development authorities

This shows that URA structures vary between jurisdictions, which makes transparent public documentation especially important in cities that rely on them.

9. Open Records Request filed

A formal Open Records Request has been submitted for:

  • URA rosters and term dates from 2018 to the present

  • URA agendas, minutes, packets, and notices

  • The resolution or ordinance that created the URA

  • Any URA bylaws or governing documents

  • All public notices associated with the October 27 and November 5 meetings

  • The October 28 email referenced by the mayor

Part Two will follow when the city responds to the Open Records Request.

Why this matters

The central transparency question is simple: how are major redevelopment and financing decisions being made, and how can residents follow them?

Here is what this situation shows:

  • The URA has real financial authority. It can issue redevelopment bonds and amend redevelopment plans.

  • Yet the city publishes no URA agendas, minutes, rosters, term dates, bylaws, or meeting history.

  • Because of the missing October 27 agenda item, the public had no notice that URA actions would be taken that night.

  • Agenda accuracy is the only way residents know what votes are coming. When an item is missing, the public loses its chance to follow or respond.

  • The fix for that omission happened the day after the election in a very short 7:30 PM special meeting.

  • Two of the three URA members are spouses of sitting councilmembers, which makes clear documentation and open appointment processes even more important.

  • At this point residents cannot see how the URA is constituted, when terms expire, how appointments are made, or how decisions are reached.

Together, these gaps make it hard for the public to track redevelopment decisions or understand how an agency with bond authority is operating.

This article documents what can be verified now. A fuller picture will be possible once the requested records are provided.

The Open Records Request will help answer the core questions the public still cannot see:

  • how this agency was created and what rules it operates under

  • who appointed its members and when their terms begin and end

  • whether vacancies were ever announced publicly

  • whether the October 27 items were properly advertised

  • what the city attorney actually advised on October 28

  • whether the URA has met previously and what decisions it has made

  • whether agendas and minutes exist that are not posted online

Once these materials arrive, residents will finally be able to see whether the November 5 re-vote was simply a procedural cleanup or part of a larger pattern of redevelopment decisions happening without clear public visibility.

Part Two will walk through every document the city provides and what it reveals about how this redevelopment authority operates.

Martha Jean
Next

From Walkable Dreams to a Paved-Over Promise