10/19/2026 Meeting Preview

You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our second meeting in October.

I’ve added information from the council agenda memos and background on items that may be of particular interest, along with my thoughts on those issues. You can watch our meetings on the City’s Facebook and YouTube pages. Our meetings are typically on the first and third Mondays of the month. Workshop Session begins at 6:00 pm; Regular Session begins at 7:30 pm; Executive Session, if necessary, takes place at the conclusion of the Regular Session.

You can access the full agenda packets here.

We welcome your attendance at our meetings, and public comment is available near the start of the meeting, before any actions are taken. You can speak at the meeting by signing up for public comment here, starting at 4:00 pm on the day of the meeting, or by signing up in person at City Hall starting at 4:00 pm. If you have feedback for Mayor and Council directly, you can email us.

In my preview of the November 17, 2025 meeting, I raised my concerns about the adoption of a new public comment policy that eliminated the ability for comments to be emailed and read into the record. This change was placed on the agenda the day before the meeting, leaving little opportunity for the public to weigh in on a significant shift in how we engage with our stakeholders. I continue to disagree with this decision. I cannot support initiatives that make it more difficult for people to have their voices heard.

A note on Community Enhancement Funds:

In FY 2026-27, each member of the governing body has been allocated $400,000 in community enhancement funds: the funds are evenly split between capital projects ($200,000) and non-capital expenditures ($200,000). Each elected official also has $100,000 for City Wide Events, for a total of $500,000.

Unlike the formal budgeting process undertaken by staff, where every dollar is tied to a specific line item, my colleagues and I did not go through that level of detail when these enhancement funds were allocated. As a result, some of the items being funded through these accounts are appearing for the first time on the Consent Agenda without any prior public discussion.

To ensure you have a real opportunity to weigh in on how these public funds are used (especially given the recent changes to the public comment policy), I believe any community enhancement expenditure not specifically identified in the adopted budget should appear in the Regular Business section of the agenda, not the Consent Agenda.

I will continue to provide updates detailing how your dollars are being spent. You deserve to know where and how your tax dollars are being invested.

To see the latest spending information, visit How the Math is Mathing: An Ongoing Series.

Workshop Session, 6:00 pm

A. Presentation on College Park Public Safety Wellness & Performance Partnership by Cycle Gang Fitness Owner Khalil Abdul Aziz.

Cycle Gang is proposing a 12-month program for our first responders in the police and fire departments, offering participating personnel four class credits per month and one dedicated 60-minute public safety performance session per month. The participants’ progress will be tracked throughout the program, and Cycle Gang will provide six-month and year-end reporting. The benchmarks call for approximately 70-80% of enrolled participants to be actively using the benefit at the six-month and year-end review points.

Cycle Gang has been in our community for close to a decade, and I think this is a great way to help our first responders stay in the best condition to respond to the needs of our community. Often the realities of the jobs they do impact their ability to stay as physically fit as they were when they started their careers.

This item is receiving more scrutiny than my colleagues’ community enhancement spending, with a full Workshop presentation and a vote during the Regular Session (Item 10A) instead of being placed on the Consent Agenda. I welcome that scrutiny. I think it should be the standard for every member's community enhancement expenditures, not the exception.

B. Discussion on an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2 (Administration), Article II (Mayor and Council), Sections 2-20 (Time and Place of Regular Meetings).

The proposed ordinance would amend Sections 2-20 and 2-29 of the City Code: regular meetings would move from 7:30 pm to 6:30 pm, and workshops would be set at 6:00 pm.

I am not in favor of shortening the Workshop Session. It has a specific purpose: it makes the Regular Session run more smoothly because items have an opportunity to be vetted before a vote. Cutting the workshop to 30 minutes is counterproductive to that. If anything, we should be putting more items on the workshop, not fewer. For example, we have a discussion of our FY25 audit coming up. The auditors found problems with the FY24 audit that had to be corrected before the FY25 audit could even be tackled, and that conversation alone should take longer than 30 minutes.

At our April 21, 2025 Workshop Session, the governing body discussed using workshop time to handle more of its business, and moving Workshop Sessions around the city so the public could have greater access to the decision making. At our retreat earlier that year, there was consensus that spending more time in Workshop than in the Regular Session and working through decisions before votes were taken was a step in the right direction. This is the exact opposite. I am concerned the proposed changes for Workshop Session may continue to erode public trust in how we’re doing business.

The proposed ordinance would also cap proclamations at three per Regular Session. Under the current practice, adopted in January 2024, proclamations are approved at the second meeting of each month and presented at the first meeting of the following month. Under the proposed ordinance, they could be considered, approved, and presented at the same meeting. Prior to January 2024, there was not a strict policy on proclamations, but we also did not present nearly as many as we do today.

Action on this item is anticipated in the Regular Session under Item 10E.

Regular Session, 7:30 pm

8. Public Hearing

A. 26-343 Public Hearing for the 2026 Comprehensive Plan Update.

This is the last opportunity you’ll have to weigh in on the City’s Comprehensive Plan update before it is submitted to the Department of Community Affairs. An update is required by the state every five years; our last one was done in 2021. It should be the foundation of how we approach growth, zoning, land and water use, infrastructure and other important developments. Your input is welcome and I hope you’ll take the time to attend and share your thoughts.

9. Consent Agenda

As I’ve noted before, according to the Georgia Municipal Association’s Handbook for Mayors and Councilmembers, “a consent agenda can be a useful tool when a governing body has a lot of business to cover. It typically includes noncontroversial items or those previously discussed and needing final approval, such as permit issuances, street closures, or bill authorizations. While a consent agenda can save time, it should never be used to bypass public participation or stifle open dialogue.”

J. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a PSA for Faith Walkers Community Church in an aggregate amount not to exceed $75,000.00.

Back in November 2025, Faith Walkers received $100,000 for emergency support services in light of the federal government shutdown. The governing body has yet to receive a formal report on how those funds were expended. I think this item would be more appropriate for discussion in the Workshop Session, with a vote in the Regular Business section of the agenda, just as the Cycle Gang agenda item has been treated.

K. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a PSA for Learning Innovation Alliance in an amount of $5,416.67 monthly.

In January, Council approved a contract with the Learning Innovation Alliance for $50,000 for 2026, with automatic renewal for another two years. For that amount, the Learning Innovation Alliance was tasked with launching a business incubator along with a mentorship network and other duties. LIA was also supposed to “track program participation, outcomes, and performance metrics, including business launches, business growth, capital deployed, job creation, and mentor engagement, and shall provide written progress reports to the City in a form and frequency acceptable to the City.” So far, I have not seen any progress reports. LIA did, however, receive $9,500 for its work for the Miss College Park pageant.

At an annualized rate of $65,000, this agenda item proposes that LIA “support a variety of Ward 3 initiatives, including Community Activities and Events, Workforce Development Programs, Facility Programming, and other non-capital Ward 3 programs assigned by the City.” Considering we do not have any information about the outcomes from the initial $50,000 investment, I have reservations about more of your tax dollars going to this organization. This would be a perfect item for discussion in Workshop. It should not be on the Consent Agenda.

10. Regular Business

D. Consideration and Action on a Resolution Adopting the City of College Park Social Media Management Policy.

I cannot adequately express what a bad idea I think this is.

The proposed policy states that the City’s official social media accounts are government communication tools and are not intended to serve as public discussion forums. It lists “positive public image” among its guiding principles. Section III.J requires staff to turn off public comments on the City’s Facebook and YouTube pages during and after every livestream of a Mayor and Council meeting. Section V allows staff to delete or hide comments they judge to be off-topic. It also allows staff to block a user for up to 30 days after three violations in a year, and to block a user permanently after two additional violations with approval from the City Attorney.

First, the policy contradicts itself. Section III.D.2.b says it is a violation of the policy to allow comments on some City content but not all of it. Section III.J does exactly that for Council meetings.

Council meetings are where residents most want to respond to what their government is doing. The reality is that there has been a lot that people have not liked recently, and they’ve said so. We shouldn’t try to hide from that. It’s part of public service. People aren’t always going to like what we do. It is unfathomable to me that we keep working to stifle dissent at every turn and think that our neighbors are just going to accept it. That is not how democracy works.

Second, speech the City does not like is still most likely protected speech. This policy asks staff to decide which comments stay and which go. That is not a role staff should be asked to fill. It also exposes the City to potential First Amendment claims.

Perhaps instead of continuing to find ways to prevent people from voicing their opinions, we should listen to what they are telling us.