10/5/2026 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 typically begins at 6:00 p.m., but there are no items on the Workshop Session for Monday’s meeting, and it has been cancelled. Regular Session begins at 7:30 p.m. 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 p.m. on the day of the meeting, or by signing up in person at City Hall starting at 4:00 p.m. If you have feedback for Mayor and Council directly, you can email us.

Last year, I raised 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 citywide 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.

Regular Session, 7:30 p.m.

8. Public Hearings

B. Public hearing and action for a reasonable accommodation request for up to eight (8) unrelated people at 2041 English Lane.

The applicant, The Halcyon House, LLC, is asking the City to allow a sober living home for up to eight unrelated adults. In June, the Fulton County Superior Court vacated the City's December 2025 denial of the request because it was not preceded by proper notice and a public hearing. The court ordered the City to reconsider the request. This is the second public hearing; the first one was held in August. My colleagues were concerned that the public may not have been fully aware of that hearing and scheduled another to ensure those who wanted to weigh in had the opportunity to do so. I encourage residents to come out and speak. The Council should hear directly from the community before making a decision.

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.”

D. Consideration of an action to approve a PSA for Spellz Productions, LLC for Communications Support Services in the amount of $4,583.50 per month. This is a budgeted item GL#100 1100 52 6170 - Contractual Services.

Because this is an expenditure that was not specifically detailed during the budget process, I believe it belongs in Regular Business where it can be discussed on its own merits instead of bundled into a single Consent Agenda vote.

Council approved a contract for Ward 3 Communications and Media Relations Services at a rate of $4,583.82 per month in January. The agenda packet does not reflect if Spellz Productions would be in addition to the existing consulting arrangement or a substitution for it. I have asked the city manager for clarification. I will let you know if I receive additional information.

10. Regular Business

A. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Resolution Amending the City of College Park Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual Regarding Vendor Eligibility and Disqualification.

B. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Resolution Establishing Eligibility and Disqualification Requirements for Certain Contracts Exempt from Competitive Procurement.

These companion resolutions would change the City’s purchasing rules. One addresses competitively procured contracts; the other addresses contracts that are exempt from competitive bidding. Both would disqualify a vendor and any affiliates if the vendor is involved in pending litigation against the City or has filed an ante litem notice.

That is an extraordinary policy direction. Pending litigation is a dispute that has not been decided. Additionally, an ante litem notice is a required pre-suit notice under Georgia law for certain monetary claims against a municipality. The ante litem language also has no end date. It disqualifies anyone who "has submitted" a notice, even if the claim was settled long ago or never pursued beyond the notice itself. Disqualifying a company for preserving a legal claim could discourage vendors from raising legitimate disputes and could reduce competition for City work. I have questions about the legality of these measures, and I have reached out to the city manager with my concerns. If I learn more, I’ll share it with you.

E. Consideration and Action on an Ordinance Amending the City’s Blighted Property Tax and Remediation Provisions.

This ordinance would increase the factor used to calculate the City’s blighted-property tax from 7 times the millage rate to 25 times the millage rate beginning January 1, 2027. It does not mean every property tax bill in College Park becomes 25 times larger. It would apply to property formally designated as blighted under the City Code. As under the current code, the higher tax would not apply to “a dwelling house which is being occupied as the primary residence of one (1) or more persons.”

Blight harms neighbors, depresses surrounding property values, and can create serious safety problems. No one disputes that the City needs tools that move neglected properties toward repair and productive use. At the same time, a tool this strong also needs clear standards and meaningful safeguards. The proposed ordinance adds an appeals process to City Council and allows voluntary rehabilitation agreements, both of which are important components.

However, the ordinance also allows the City to require performance, payment, and completion bonds from owners who enter rehabilitation agreements, with no standards for when bonds apply or how large they must be. Bonds require credit and often collateral, so the owners who most need a path out of the higher tax may be the least able to qualify for one.

I also have a concern rooted in what I have heard directly from business owners in our City. Several have described code enforcement that felt targeted. This ordinance lets the City decide which owners are offered a rehabilitation agreement, but it sets no standards for that choice. A penalty of 25 times the millage rate in the wrong hands is not a tool for fixing blight. It is a tool for pressure.

F. Consideration of and action on a request for international travel for Mayor Pro Tem Carn and City Manager Michael Hicks to attend Elevate Africa Conference in Accra, Ghana.

The memo identifies general ledger accounts from which the funding for this trip would be drawn, but it does not state the amount the City is being asked to spend. You should know the expected cost of this trip before the money is spent. Additionally, there is no explanation of why both the city manager and my colleague from Ward 2 need to attend.

As a final note, I traveled to Ghana last year with the African American Mayors Association (AAMA) for a trade mission. While AAMA covered part of the hotel costs and food, I paid for the remainder of my lodging and the flight from personal funds.

G. Consideration of and action on a request to authorize the City Manager to enter into the necessary agreements for construction of a green space at Global Gateway and Riverdale Road, to place the Bill Evans Ball Field.

The agenda memo notes this project will not exceed the net proceeds of the sale of Bill Evans Field, which is approximately $1,300,000. Council approved the sale of Bill Evans Field together with the practice field behind the track at Badgett Stadium, for the development of an apartment community. I am not aware of any plans to replace the practice field.

The project’s size raises a procurement issue. Under O.C.G.A. § 36-91-22, Georgia’s public works bidding requirements generally apply when a public works construction project cannot be performed for less than $250,000. The same statute says a project may not be subdivided to evade those requirements. O.C.G.A. § 36-91-20 requires public advertisement and award through competitive sealed bidding or competitive sealed proposals.

The agenda memo proposes agreements with Metrocorp for professional services, Evergreen for site work, and P2K for land construction. Naming three firms and authorizing the agreements “through the applicable contract authority” is not enough information to evaluate whether we have complied with Georgia law. I’ve asked the city manager about this situation. When I receive more information, I’ll be sure to let you know.