(Ch)eatonville Independent
Civic Review
After the meeting Recap · Town Council

July 7, 2026 Regular Council Meeting — Recap

Four members at the dais, one on Zoom without a vote. A corrective ordinance passed, the consent agenda got tabled, and two of the night's most contested items — the Development Review Committee and support for the Hungerford lawsuit — both failed 2-2.

The July 7, 2026 Regular Council meeting — what the Council did on each agenda item, with the recorded votes. Vote details below are taken from the meeting recording.

Who was present

Four Council members were present at the dais — Mayor Critton, Vice Mayor Thomas, and Council Members Jordan and Randolph. Council Member Mack participated by Zoom but did not cast a recorded vote on any item; every tally below reflects only the four members present in person.

Ordinance 2026-5 — recovery residences, corrective index

Passed 4-0. Moved by Randolph, seconded by Thomas, all present voting aye. The action tonight was limited to reassigning the ordinance's index number on the previously adopted measure; the underlying first reading is covered in the agenda breakdown.

Tabled. No vote taken on the consent items, including approval of prior meeting minutes.

Resolution 2026-32 — HostDime community engagement

Tabled. Moved by Randolph, seconded by Thomas. Asked by the Mayor for an update since this is the item's third appearance, Randolph spoke about the need for outside professional help to manage risk and to review complex developments — remarks that tracked more closely with the subject matter of the Development Review Committee (Resolution 2026-33, below) than with 2026-32's original request for independent water, electricity, and noise disclosures from HostDime. The Mayor responded that the Town already has professional staff on payroll for that purpose. The item was tabled rather than brought to a vote.

Resolution 2026-33 — Development Review Committee

Failed, 2-2. Randolph and Jordan voting yes; Thomas and Critton voting no. This is the third time the item has come before the Council, having previously been tabled at the June 8 special meeting and the June 16 regular meeting.

Resolution 2026-38 — support for the Hungerford lawsuit

Failed, 2-2. Moved by Randolph, seconded by Jordan; Randolph and Jordan voting yes, Thomas and Critton voting no. This is the second time a version of this resolution has failed — the predecessor, Resolution 2026-37, failed 2-3 on June 16.

Randolph reiterated her position that the Town "was not considered" in the Hungerford property transaction. According to discussion at an Orange County School Board meeting, the Board had extended the Town multiple opportunities over roughly eight years to purchase the property before it was placed under contract with Dr. Phillips Charities — context that bears on how "not considered" is understood, though it has not yet been confirmed against a School Board record or transcript.

Council Member Mack, participating by Zoom, stated during discussion that he would vote yes if a version of this resolution comes back again, a reversal of his no vote on 2026-37 in June.

Council Member Jordan stated she could not take herself seriously if she were not in support of the lawsuit. Randolph, drawing on her experience sitting in on court proceedings, spoke about how a judge would view the Town if it does not stand up for itself, and about not wanting to let down the town's founders.

Interim Town Attorney Greg Jackson corrected the record on Randolph's characterization of the Sunshine Law claim, noting that a violation has been alleged, not established. He also advised that a judge could view a formal Town resolution condemning the transaction, and backing litigation against it, unfavorably if the Town later appears before a court in a related proceeding.

Mayor Critton remarked that bringing back resolutions that have already failed, repeatedly, appeared to be a misuse of Robert's Rules of Order. She also offered a correction regarding an earlier characterization of her family's lineage in the town.

Given Mack's stated intent to vote yes if the resolution returns, and the pattern of repeated reintroduction, a third version of this resolution is a reasonable expectation at a future meeting.

Resolution 2026-39 — CDBG participation, FY 2027-2029 (walk-on item)

Passed, all present voting aye. Moved by Randolph, seconded by Jordan. Added to the agenda as a walk-on item, the resolution declares the Town's participation with Orange County in the federal Community Development Block Grant program for the FY 2027-2029 cycle. The Chief Administrative Officer briefed the Council on how the grant flows from the County and what the declaration commits the Town to.


Sources. Meeting recording · July 7 Regular Meeting packet

Recorded votes — Town Council
VoteCrittonThomasJordanRandolphResult
Ordinance 2026-5 (recovery residences)ayeayeayeayePassed
Resolution 2026-33 (Development Review Committee)naynayayeayeFailed
Resolution 2026-38 (Hungerford lawsuit support)naynayayeayeFailed
Resolution 2026-39 (CDBG participation)ayeayeayeayePassed

Recorded votes — Town Council

  • Ordinance 2026-5 (recovery residences)Passed
  • Resolution 2026-33 (Development Review Committee)Failed
  • Resolution 2026-38 (Hungerford lawsuit support)Failed
  • Resolution 2026-39 (CDBG participation)Passed

Results reflect the vote as recorded at the meeting; resolutions are subject to ratification.