Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Airport Resolution topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Richmond Hill council delays airport resolution after new legal concerns and public objections

Richmond Hill City Mayor and Council · April 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Richmond Hill Mayor and Council unanimously voted to postpone action on an airport resolution to their May meeting after public commenters urged withdrawal and Councilmember Cindy Hatala cited new legal information and a possible basis for litigation under O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4.

The Richmond Hill Mayor and Council voted April 7 to postpone a decision on an airport resolution until their May meeting after Councilmember Cindy Hatala said new information presented that day warranted further review.

Hatala asked that the resolution and recently submitted findings be reviewed at the next workshop, citing material shared by Representative Ron Stephens, the City Attorney and the Finance Director and referencing O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4 as a potential basis for litigation. The motion to postpone was seconded by Councilmember Van Hunter and carried unanimously.

Members of the public had urged council action earlier in the meeting. Mary Beasley raised questions about transparency, accountability and the publication of minutes related to the proposed airport project and asked about the composition of the airport authority. Corey Foreman urged the Council to withdraw financial support for the airport authority, noting it currently holds no land or revenue. Those comments were part of a broader public-comment segment in which several residents spoke to governance and project concerns.

Mayor Kristi Cox and other councilmembers did not take a final position on the resolution at the meeting; instead, the Council directed staff and the body to review the new materials and discuss the matter at the May workshop before voting on the resolution. No vote on the substance of the resolution occurred on April 7.

The postponement preserves the Council’s option to act at its May meeting after staff and Council have had additional time to examine the legal and financial issues referenced at the April session.