10/20/2025 Meeting Preview

You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our first 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 in person at the meeting or submit an e-mail with your name, address, and comment or remark to pcomment@collegeparkga.com no later than 7:30 pm on the evening of the meeting. The City Clerk will read your name, address and comment into the official record. If you have feedback for Mayor and Council directly, you can e-mail us.

WORKSHOP SESSION

The items on today’s workshop session are far more than workshop in nature. There is significant action being proposed that could change the course of development within the city. It is absolutely legal to take action during a workshop session. It is unusual for this governing body to do so. I am concerned the workshop session is being structured in this manner to bypass significant public scrutiny. I urge you to attend both the workshop and the regular session tonight and make your voice heard.

1. Public Hearing for the condemnation 4122 Herschel Road.

2. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a condemnation Resolution for property located at 4122 Herschel Road for public use as a Botanical Garden.

There is no supporting documentation other than the resolution in the packet. Councilmember Gay sent information last night regarding this item. The discussion of expanding the botanical garden, considering that nothing has been built, is concerning — and seemingly unnecessary at this point. The resolution reflects that all statutory requirements have been met, including “providing the property owner with written notice of the City’s intent to acquire the property, the public purpose of the acquisition, an opportunity to negotiate just compensation, and any additional procedural requirements necessary to proceed with eminent domain.” I cannot tell if this is the case from either the information in the packet, or the information provided last night by my colleague. This, in and of itself, is troubling.

3. Public Hearing for the 2025 Urban Redevelopment Plan.

4. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the Resolution Adopting the 2025 Urban Redevelopment Plan.

5. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Resolution Establishing the City’s Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA).

The creation of an Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) would directly conflict with the Business and Industrial Development Authority (BIDA). The URA would “oversee the acquisition, renovation, and installation of all related improvements. Upon completion of these activities, ownership of the Urban Redevelopment Project shall be conveyed to the City. Until such conveyance, the Agency shall retain all rights to sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of the property in accordance with applicable law and redevelopment objectives.” The land designated for the Urban Redevelopment Plan is located within key areas of the city, including the Old National/Godby Road corridor, the entirety of the Six West development, and the proposed botanical gardens off of Herschel Road.

From the resolution that is proposed to form the URA, the city council would be the only members of the agency. I have serious reservations about the city council being the individuals solely in charge of development. I do not think this is in the best interest of the city, given the missteps that we have seen in regard to development of Six West thus far.

Used responsibly, the tools of a URA can drive renewal and help cities grow in a thoughtful, equitable way. The whole point of a redevelopment agency is to add capacity and accountability, not eliminate it. When the same elected officials control both the policy and the execution, there is no internal check on how land is acquired, who gets development rights, or how taxpayer dollars are spent. It blurs the line between legislative and operational authority and opens the door to decisions being made without the transparency residents deserve. This is not about opposing revitalization. It is about how we do it. We can build and beautify without silencing public input or concentrating power in too few hands.

Redevelopment should be about restoring neighborhoods, not eroding public confidence. If College Park wants to attract investment, it must also demonstrate integrity by respecting process, enforcing transparency, and ensuring accountability at every level. Because when power consolidates, accountability disappears. When accountability disappears, trust is the first casualty.

REGULAR SESSION

8. Consent Agenda

As I’ve noted before, “[a]ccording 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.”

We regularly utilized consent agendas in 2023. The items on the consent agenda were part of the workshop session for discussion and then approved in the regular meeting. Any member of the body could pull an item off of the consent agenda in the regular session for individual consideration. This process ensured each elected official understood the business at hand before a vote. This hasn’t happened with the use of consent agendas in 2024 and so far in 2025.

Additionally, for FY2025–2026, each member of the governing body has been allocated $900,000 in community enhancement funds—$500,000 designated for capital projects and $400,000 for non-capital expenditures.

Unlike the formal budgeting process undertaken by staff, where every dollar is tied to a specific line item, I and my colleagues 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 discussion.

In the spirit of transparency and to ensure you have a real opportunity to weigh in on how these public funds are used, I believe that 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.

Lately, it feels like just about everything is being placed on the consent agenda. And once it’s there, no one asks questions. It appears no one wants their own items pulled off for discussion. That might make meetings move faster, but it’s not healthy for the city. The consent agenda is meant for routine, noncontroversial matters; not a place to quietly approve major spending with no debate.

When we stop asking questions, we stop doing our jobs. We owe it to our residents to take a closer look at where and how their tax dollars are being spent. Right now, it feels like spending is happening without the level of scrutiny or discipline our community deserves. Transparency and accountability have to come before convenience.

As this fiscal year continues, I will provide quarterly updates detailing how your community enhancement dollars are being spent. You deserve to know where and how your tax dollars are being invested.

In that spirit, you can see how community enhancement funds have been spent since the beginning of the fiscal year (July 1st) through October 6, 2025 by clicking here.

A. Consideration of and action on a request to recommends (sic) approval to allow A&S Paving, Inc. to perform milling and street resurfacing work on Windsor Forest Court (two streets) as an additional street under the scope of RFP 25-053025 – Street Resurfacing. This request constitutes Amendment #3 to the original contract. The proposed cost for this additional work is $53,542.80. Funding for this amendment will be provided by Ward 2 Councilman Joe Carn, who has committed to allocate funds from his Ward 2 - Community Enhancement (Non- Capital (GL# 100-1100-52-7282). This amendment directly supports infrastructure improvements in Ward 2 and aligns with the City’s ongoing efforts to enhance roadway conditions and neighborhood accessibility.

A&S Paving has done well over $1 million of work in the city since the start of the fiscal year. Most of that has been through amendments to the original contract. At some point, I think we should be ensuring that we are getting the best price for the new projects and bid them out.

C. Consideration of an Action to approve a resolution appointing Frank Madrigal, residing on Herschel Road, College Park, GA 30337, as the City Resident Liaison between Fulton County Government and the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden pursuant to the 2025 Land Lease. Fund: Special Projects (Capital Outlay) G/L Account #275-4975-54-7655.

The appointment of Mr. Madrigal as the liaison is indicated as a budgeted item, but neither the amount he will receive nor the payment structure (e.g., stipend, hourly rate, or contract) is disclosed in the packet. The agenda simply lists the appointment and the funding source without attaching a cost breakdown.

D. Consideration of and action on a request to authorize A&S Paving to Mill and Repave Janice Drive and Monticello Way. Janice Drive in the amount of $307,215.50 and Monticello Way in the amount of $95,750. This is a budgeted item. FUND: Ward 4 Community Enhancement (Capital) 100-1100-54-7184. This is sponsored by Councilman Gay.

There are insufficient funds in the Ward 4 Capital account for this expenditure. The following projects have already been approved to be paid for with the $500,000 in the account:

• Milling and repaving Arundel Lane, Brannon Road, and Williamsburg Drive: $289,540.26 (8/18/2025)

• Remediation work on a city stormwater creek easement at 4673 Winthrop Drive: $54,053.59 (8/18/2025)

• Restoration of a stormwater ditch at 4107 and 4099 Monticello Way: $30,389.79 (9/2/2025)

• Milling and paving the city-owned parking lot at 2540 Riverdale Road: $625,000 (9/2/2025)

While the $625,000 is to be repaid from the proceeds of the sale of Bill Evans Field (which has not closed to my knowledge), another $402,965.50 in paving clearly puts the account into the red. I will attempt to take this item and others off of the consent agenda since there is no money budgeted for it, but based upon past experience, I am not hopeful that my colleagues will wish to have a deeper discussion. At this point, I am deeply troubled at my colleagues’ seeming lack of concern regarding the expenditure of public funds.

E. Consideration of and action on a request to authorize Kanoom Construction to Retrofit and Remodel the Public Restroom at Charles Phillips Park in the amount of $119,925.77. Yes, this is a budgeted item. FUND: Recreation Capital Projects 100-6122-54-7920. This is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

The money in the recreation capital projects fund was not budgeted for this expenditure. Furthermore, labeling this as an immediate need appears to me to be an attempt to circumvent the procurement process. The bathrooms are in need of repair. There is no argument about that. However, we should open the project up for bid through the procurement process. This is a job that will cost over $100,000, according to the one quote we have. I am concerned this process runs afoul of our own policies and procedures. I will attempt to take this item and others off of the consent agenda since there is no money budgeted for it, but based upon past experience, I am not hopeful that my colleagues will wish to have a deeper discussion. At this point, I am deeply troubled at my colleagues’ seeming lack of concern regarding the expenditure of public funds.

G. Consideration of a resolution to authorize the engagement of TSW Architecture and Planners for the design and construction of Phase III of the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden Project through a design-build contract, subject to legal review. Phase III includes the adaptive reuse of three existing cabins and related site improvements. The project is to be funded from previously appropriated Tourism Product Development Fund and General Fund allocations. This is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

In the agenda transmittal for this item, there is an indication this is a piggyback contract. The guidelines surrounding piggyback contracts in our procurement manual are clear. Among other things, piggybacking “requires written acknowledgment from both the successful bidder and the government entity, which did the soliciting, granting their approval that they will allow the City of College Park to acquire that item or service under the same prices, terms, and conditions of the original contract with the exception allowances only for the differences in delivery costs.”

The information to substantiate that is not in the packet. I am concerned this process runs afoul of our own policies and procedures. I will attempt to take this item and others off of the consent agenda since there is no money budgeted for it, but based upon past experience, I am not hopeful that my colleagues will wish to have a deeper discussion. At this point, I am deeply troubled at my colleagues’ seeming lack of concern regarding the expenditure of public funds.

REGULAR AGENDA

A. Consideration of and action on a request to permanently change the regular session for council meetings to conclude its Regular Session business no later than 9:30 p.m. If all items have not been addressed by that time, the remaining items shall be carried forward to the next scheduled Regular Session agenda under the category of “Old Business”. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Arnold and has no budget impact.

I think it’s fair to say that our meetings have become too long. In conversations with colleagues across the state, I’ve learned that many cities are able to conduct most of their substantive discussions during a separate work session (typically held on a different day) where questions are answered and issues are fully vetted before the regular meeting. As a result, their regular sessions often last less than an hour, focusing primarily on formal votes. While there was interest during our last retreat in holding more in-depth workshop sessions to discuss items in advance, that approach has not yet materialized. I’ve shared many times my belief that items on the consent agenda deserve the opportunity for discussion, and I will continue to make that case. We have an obligation to stay until the city’s business is done, but we also have to recognize that no one makes great decisions when they’re exhausted. Meetings that stretch past midnight don’t serve the public or the council as well as they should, and I hope we can find a more balanced and efficient way to do the people’s work.

C. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Resolution Supporting Partnership and Funding of the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden Conservancy. This is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

D. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of College Park and the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden Conservancy. This is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

First things first: as of 3:00 pm on October 20, 2025, the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden Conservancy is not registered with the Georgia Secretary of State as a business, non-profit or otherwise, in this state. (You can search for yourself here.) It is also not registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3). (You can search here.)

The resolution and accompanying documents treat it as a functioning nonprofit, but it has not been incorporated, has no board, and no IRS recognition. We also don’t know who is heading it up other than attorney Harold Buckley Jr., who previously represented NextEra in their efforts to locate a battery energy storage facility in College Park. That connection alone raises understandable concerns about transparency and accountability in this process. The proposed funding would be directed to an organization that does not yet exist, with no accountability, no measurable outcomes, and no established governance structure. It is entirely inappropriate for the city to commit public money to a private entity under these circumstances, especially one that bears the name of a sitting councilmember and lacks even the most basic transparency about its leadership or purpose.

The resolution for partnership and funding “provide[s] a one-time initial funding package in the amount of $500,000 to support the Conservancy’s startup and early development, to be disbursed in five equal payments of $100,000.00 commencing on the effective date of the MOU,” along with “a funding commitment via an annual allocation of $650,000 from the City’s TBD (sic) Fund, to be disbursed in equal quarterly installments beginning in Fiscal Year 2025 through Fiscal Year 2030.”

The portion of the resolution that sends $100,000 to the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden Conservancy upon the “effective date” of the MOU is highly problematic. I am concerned that is a legal and financial impossibility when the entity doesn’t exist. There can be no effective date for an agreement with a party that has not been formed. Committing any amount of money to a nonexistent entity exposes the city to significant risk and violates basic contracting principles. Without incorporation documents, a tax identification number, or a governing board, there is no one to lawfully receive or be accountable for those funds. Yet the resolution sets in motion payments tied directly to the MOU’s execution, creating a scenario where city staff could be pressured to release taxpayer money without a legitimate recipient. This is not only reckless but undermines the city’s fiduciary responsibility to ensure all expenditures are properly authorized, auditable, and compliant with state law.

In contrast to this exceptionally troubling proposed relationship, the Atlanta Botanical Garden does not receive direct funding from the City of Atlanta. It is reliant upon memberships, donations, events, admission fees, on-site operations, grants and capital campaigns. Additionally, we still have not seen a serious plan for the operation of the proposed botanical garden in College Park. It is incredibly concerning that there have not been any feasibility studies to date, or any substantive efforts I’m aware of to secure partnerships to move this project forward.

It appears as if College Park is being treated as a cash cow that will never stop giving milk. That should be unacceptable to all of us.