11/17/2025 Meeting Preview
You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our second meeting in November. 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 email 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 email us.
WORKSHOP SESSION
2. Presentation regarding the proposed collaboration from Trees Atlanta for tree planting and care plans on Main Street and E Main Street. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.
Trees Atlanta’s proposal to partner with the City of College Park on a comprehensive tree-planting and care initiative along Main Street and East Main Street comes at no cost to the City. Their plan includes selecting, delivering, and planting a mix of native, climate-resilient trees and providing two full years of maintenance, including irrigation, mulching, pruning, pest management, and even replacement trees when appropriate. Beyond improving our urban canopy, the partnership brings community engagement and educational opportunities that align with our long-term goals for environmental sustainability and corridor revitalization. While this proposal focuses on Main Street, I would also like to see Trees Atlanta assess the entire city, particularly high-travel areas like Old National Highway and Godby Road. There are opportunities to strengthen our canopy, improve walkability and enhance the overall quality of life throughout College Park.
4. Presentation by the CP Historical Preservation Conservancy. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.
There is no supporting documentation for this item in the Workshop packet.
REGULAR SESSION
7. Public Hearings
A. Public hearing and action on a request to approve a resolution for a conditional height permit at 3698 East Main Street and resolution. This item is requested by Lenise Lyons, City Planner.
This proposed project, located north of College Park First United Methodist Church on East Main Street, would be a mixed-use/live-work townhome community. The developer wants to have townhomes that have ground-level commercial/professional workspaces. The maximum height allowed per our code is 35 feet; the developer is requesting a conditional height permit that would allow the buildings to reach 53 feet. Staff recommends approval.
B. Public Hearing for 2025 College Park Redevelopment Plan. This item is requested by City Attorney Winston Denmark.
This plan proposes major redevelopment activity in three areas of the city: the Old National Corridor, the Six West Development District, and the area designated for the botanical garden off of Herschel Road. Taken together, these three zones create a broad redevelopment area wherein the Redevelopment Agency would hold wide-ranging authority to acquire land (via purchase or eminent domain), dispose of land, oversee public improvements, and direct redevelopment activities. That structure has the potential to conflict with the long-established Business and Industrial Development Authority (BIDA), which already owns large portions of Six West and has historically served as the city’s lead entity for development. By giving the Redevelopment Agency overlapping powers in the same geographic areas, the plan risks creating two authorities with competing jurisdictions, conflicting mandates, and the possibility of slowing or complicating development rather than supporting it.
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 used 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. I have made an open records request for spending since October 6. I have received some of that information and I will continue to supplement as I receive additional ledgers.
Update (11/17/2025 @ 3:57 pm): Ward 4 Non-Capital Spending, 10/6/2025-11/14/2025
B. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of College Park, Georgia and Faith Walkers Community Church, Inc. for Emergency Support Services. This item is sponsored by Councilman Tracie Arnold.
C. Consideration of and action on a request to approve $100,000 payment to Faith Walkers Community Church for the support of community wrap around services for the city of College Park Ward 3 constituents. This is a budgeted item. Non-Capital Initiatives budget (GL# 100-1100-52-7283). This is sponsored by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold.
This item is not specifically delineated in the FY2025-FY2026 budget.
According to our procurement policy, “[a]n emergency exists when a situation, malfunction, or condition occurs suddenly and unexpected that (1) may threaten the health, safety, property, or welfare of the public; (2) stops or seriously impairs the function of City government, such as inclement weather, epidemics, riots, equipment failures, etc.; or (3) requires immediate procurement of goods and/or services that are essential to comply with state or federal regulatory requirements.”
The proposed MOU with Faith Walkers notes, “the City is presently responding to an ongoing federal crisis that has directly impacted residents and created urgent needs related to food insecurity, access to basic living essentials, and short-term crisis support services.” The contract is proposed to terminate on June 30, 2026. The emergency services include, but are not limited to:
(a) Distributing food, clothing, personal hygiene products, and general life essentials to residents in need;
(b) Providing case management and limited mental health support services to assist residents in navigating available community resources;
(c) Coordinating all service operations with the City Manager or their designee and ensuring use of the Primary Site in compliance with City policies and facility availability;
(d) Maintaining adequate staffing, volunteers, and logistical support to ensure safe, timely, and equitable service delivery;
(e) Maintaining detailed records of all expenditures, service data, and client interactions for monthly review by the City;
(f) Submitting monthly reports summarizing services rendered, number of residents served, and total funds expended;
(g) Complying with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, including those related to nondiscrimination, confidentiality, and fiscal accountability.
I am concerned that with the end of the federal government shutdown, while our residents are still feeling the impact, we would not technically be in the midst of an emergency for procurement purposes. If we are not in an emergency, this would need to go through the formal procurement process. In our Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual, any service over $10,000 must be competitively procured through a formal solicitation. The services described in Items 8B and 8C exceed that threshold, and without an active, immediate threat that would justify invoking the emergency procurement exception, we are required to follow normal competitive procedures. Awarding these funds without an open process would not comply with our procurement rules, and it would bypass the transparency and fairness that residents expect. For that reason, the appropriate path forward is a publicly advertised competitive procurement so that qualified providers can submit proposals and the City can select the best partner in accordance with our policies and procedures.
E. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the use of the City’s Exception Policy to authorize the emergency procurement and installation of digital cable and fiber optic infrastructure at the Arena. This action will ensure uninterrupted connectivity and support critical operations at the facility. The cost is $141,436.00 to repair. This item is requested by Yanous Barner, Executive Director GICC, Arena & Golf Course. This is a budgeted item. FUND: Other Equipment Replacement G/L #556-4969-54- 7640 for F/Y 2026. This will service Ward 2.
What’s also striking about this item is that the agenda transmittal describes what may go wrong at the Arena, not what has actually gone wrong. Speculating about potential disruptions to events or revenue is not the same as “a situation, malfunction, or condition occurs suddenly and unexpected that (1) may threaten the health, safety, property, or welfare of the public; (2) stops or seriously impairs the function of City government, such as inclement weather, epidemics, riots, equipment failures, etc.; or (3) requires immediate procurement of goods and/or services that are essential to comply with state or federal regulatory requirements,” which are the only circumstances under which emergency procurement is allowed.
When the justification is entirely hypothetical, we do not have an emergency. We have a planning issue. And planning issues must go through the normal competitive procurement process. The fact that the quote for this $140,000+ project was obtained a month ago, combined with the lack of any documented failure or urgent hazard, makes it clear that this item does not meet the City’s own emergency criteria.
F. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the cooperative purchasing agreement with Lichty Commercial Construction, Inc. in the amount of $60,000.00, utilizing Sourcewell Contract GA-RA-043024-LIY. This agreement will allow the City to engage the vendor for general contracting services at the Georgia International Convention Center (GICC) in accordance with procurement policies and cooperative purchasing guidelines. This is a budgeted item. This item is being requested by Yanous Barner, Director of GICC. Fund: Grounds FY2026 520-6122-52-5780
While the City is relying on a Sourcewell contract to bypass the formal bidding process, the agenda packet does not include a scope of work explaining what we are actually spending $60,000 on at the GICC. That is not acceptable. A scope of work is a basic, essential document. Without it, neither the Council nor the public can evaluate what services are being purchased, whether the price is appropriate, or whether the work aligns with City priorities. The absence of this key information is highly problematic and represents a significant gap in the materials provided for review. At a minimum, the full scope of work must be included before any responsible decision can be made.
H. Motion to approve Resolution No. 2025-XX for the City of College Park’s revised application for the Fulton County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) three-year funding grant application for park and facility improvements. This item is being requested by Lance Terry, Interim Director of Recreation & Cultural Arts. This will service all wards.
Approval of this item allows the City to formally submit a revised application to Fulton County for consideration in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for FY 2026 and 2027. The revised requests total $470,000 for two capital projects. For FY 2026, the City is seeking $195,000 to complete improvements at Badgett Stadium, including HVAC replacement for the press box and restrooms as well as new press box windows. For FY 2027, the application requests $275,000 to fund Phase II of the roof rehabilitation at the Wyatt Recreation Center Community House. Both projects are designed to enhance safety, functionality, and the long-term usability of heavily used community facilities.
Note: The resolution in the packet indicates the request from Fulton County CDBG is $495,000; $220,000 for Badgett Stadium and $275,000 for the community house. However, all of the supporting documentation in the packet other than the resolution indicates the request for Badgett Stadium is $195,000, not $220,000.
I. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Lovely Media Group in the amount of $24,500 for the production of a College Park Train Depot Documentary. The contract will span a six-month term, during which the vendor will develop a comprehensive and professionally produced documentary that captures the historical significance, current revitalization efforts, and future vision for the Train Depot. This is a budgeted item. FUND: Ward 1 Community Enhancement Non - Capital Funds. GL Account #100.1100.52.7281.
This was an addition to the agenda Sunday night.
This item is not specifically delineated in the FY2025-FY2026 budget.
While highlighting our history is valuable, this request raises procedural concerns. Under the City’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures Manual, any contract of this size must either go through a competitive procurement process or include a written, approved justification explaining why an exemption applies. Neither was provided. Before spending significant public funds, we should first ensure that the process is transparent, compliant, and in the best interest of College Park residents.
9. Regular Business
D. Consideration of and action on a request to approve seven invoices from Colliers International South Carolina, Inc from July through October totaling $824,400.00. This is a budgeted item (G/L Account# 57-11-3810- FAA). This is being requested by Ron Wilkerson, Senior Property Manager.
I am curious to understand why five months of invoices are being presented for payment all at once instead of being handled on a monthly basis. Despite the agenda title, there are invoices from July through November.
G. Consideration of and action on a request to adopt a resolution Allocating $500,000 from the Ward III Capital Initiative Fund for Land Preparation Activities Supporting the Future City Incubator & Accelerator Center and Authorization for SPLOST Advance-Funding and Reimbursement. GL Account #100-11-3300 Advances to Other Funds. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold.
H. Consideration of and action on a request to adopt a resolution allocating of $350,000 for Dog Park Development and Authorization for SPLOST Advance-Funding and Reimbursement. GL Account #100-11-3300 Advances to Other Funds. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold.
The resolutions for these agenda items allocate $500,000 from the Ward III Capital Improvement Fund for land-preparation work connected to a future City incubator and accelerator center, and $350,000 for a dog park, with the expectation that these costs will later be reimbursed by the 2027 Clayton County SPLOST. While earmarking funds for a future SPLOST cycle is reasonable, actually spending money in 2025 based on revenue we will not begin receiving until 2027 is not sound fiscal policy. It also forces the City into multi-year accounting and tracking obligations that add complexity at a time when our finance team is in flux. SPLOST collections are not guaranteed year-to-year because economic conditions can change. We should work to align spending with confirmed funding, not anticipated future reimbursements. Additionally, the Ward III Capital Improvement Fund has $500,000 allocated for FY2026; it is unclear where the additional $350,000 would come from.
Update (11/17/2025 @ 9:32 am): I had a conversation with our financial advisor who walked me through the process a little more, and this practice is not that different than what other local governments have done. I would backtrack the above statement about this proposal not being sound fiscal policy. However, we anticipate receiving $3,739,000 over six years of SPLOST collections, starting January 1, 2027. These projects would commit the first sixteen months of SPLOST collections to these projects. We have historically used Clayton County SPLOST collections for GICC renovations. The needs at the GICC still remain, including a new roof.
I. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Resolution Supporting the Establishment of the CP Historical Preservation Conservancy and Authorizing Financial Partnership. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.
J. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of College Park and the CP Historical Preservation Conservancy. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.
According to the Secretary of State, the CP Historical Preservation Conservancy was incorporated on November 12. That was last Wednesday.
However, the proposed MOU would commit the City to $250,000 every year in Tourism Product Development funds, with a term that runs through June 30, 2026 and then automatically renews for up to nine additional one-year terms. Even more alarming is the agreement’s liquidated damages clause, which states: “if this Agreement is terminated for any reason with or without cause, the City shall remain obligated to remit all remaining funding or compensation due under this Agreement through its original expiration date.” In practice, this means that once the City signs, even if the Conservancy fails to perform, mishandles funds, collapses as an organization, or is found to be non-compliant, taxpayers are still required to pay out $250,000 regardless. That clause alone raises significant red flags.
The board includes Karen Jeremie, who runs Destination College Park, which has already received more than $80,000 of commitments of City funding. I have no idea why the City would embark upon such an extraordinary financial risk with an organization that is less than a week old and has not yet demonstrated the capacity, transparency, or accountability expected of a long-term public partner. This brand-new nonprofit has no track record, no IRS determination and no publicly-available plan. This arrangement does not pass the sniff test. College Park deserves better.
Update (11/17/2025 @ 2:15 pm): In a conversation with Ms. Jeremie this afternoon, she noted she has not received the full $80,000 from the City yet. I apologize for the error. I have changed the narrative above to reflect the city has committed over $80,000 in funds.
L. Consideration of and action on a request between the City of College Park and TSW Design to provide technical advice and professional services to the City for conceptual drawings and plans for the Roderick Gay Botanical Gardens. This item is sponsored by Councilman Gay.
The scope of services for this $83,500 contract includes a number of interesting components, but two in particular were of interest:
(1) For purposes of the Project, the Contractor shall provide the Design Program, which shall include aspects of: (a) Windmill (Provided by NextEra Energy) – A landmark feature symbolizing renewable innovation, set within a native grass meadow and interpretive plaza;
and
(3) For the Project, the Contractor shall deliver the following:
(d) Opinion of Probable Project Costs, which shall include an Opinion of Probable Project Costs (OPC) will provide a preliminary cost framework to support planning, feasibility, and fundraising efforts. It shall summarize cost categories for site preparation, hardscape, planting, structures, and key program elements. The Contractor shall deliver Preliminary OPC Table and Cost Summary Narrative.
First, it’s interesting NextEra Energy is back. Harold Buckley, Jr., the attorney for NextEra when they came before the city to rezone the property on Welcome All Rd. for a battery energy storage facility. He is also purportedly an officer of the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden Conservancy.
Second, why are we just now pricing out this project? This is backwards and reflects major issues with this venture overall. This is deeply problematic, especially given that the City has already committed more than $13 million toward the botanical garden project.
The scope reads like a full master plan for a billion-dollar destination resort, not a botanical garden concept. It includes a 250-room hotel, a 35,000 square foot conference center, three restaurants, a commercial greenhouse complex, a large network of themed gardens, a great lawn, extensive water features, and full 3D visualization packages. None of this aligns with what the public has been told, what Council has ever formally approved, or what is justified for a project of this nature. More concerning is that this scope is tied to a “Framework Plan” that is not included anywhere in the packet.
Even more troubling, the scope contains major development assumptions, including commercial hospitality, restaurants, parking expansions, and large buildings that directly contradict the stated public purpose for the project, including the condemnation justification for “Botanical Garden” use. If the City is telling a judge the land is being taken for a public garden but is simultaneously paying a consultant to design a hotel complex, that may create needless exposure.
M. Consideration of and action on a request to purchase land located at 2525 Roosevelt Highway, adjacent to the Dog Park. This item is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.
There is no appraisal of the subject property in the agenda packet. While there’s no legal requirement in Georgia that an appraisal must be obtained before a city buys land, it is unquestionably best practice and basic common sense. An appraisal protects taxpayers by establishing fair market value and ensuring the city isn’t overpaying or allowing personal preferences to dictate financial decisions. When we’re dealing with public dollars, especially in a year where we’ve seen repeated examples of questionable spending and weak procurement controls, skipping an appraisal could be seen as irresponsible. Residents deserve assurance that every property purchase is grounded in transparent, objective financial information, not guesswork or urgency.
N. Consideration of and action on an Agreement between the City of College Park and AMC Commercial Realty, Inc. to provide professional real estate brokerage services to the City for the acquisition of 4122 Herschel Road College Park, Fulton County, Georgia for public use as the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden. This item is sponsored by Councilman Gay.
Other than the contract, there is no supporting documentation explaining the need for this agreement. This is the property the council voted to condemn at our workshop meeting on October 20, 2025. This company was already engaged earlier in the year and paid $9,000 to acquire this same tract of land. AMC Commercial Realty is the same company that is representing the City in the acquisition of the land adjacent to the dog park in agenda item 9N.
O. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a resolution regarding the City of College Park Public Comment Policy. This item is sponsored by City Attorney Winston Denmark.
This was an addition to the agenda Sunday night.
This proposed Public Comment Policy represents a shift away from accessibility in our government. Under this policy, residents would be required to register online beginning at 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting, eliminating the longstanding in-person sign-in option and replacing it with a single City Hall tablet that does not guarantee a speaking slot. Email comments would be eliminated entirely.
The policy also introduces arguably overly broad restrictions on speech, including bans on so-called “personal attacks,” which courts have repeatedly said are protected under the First Amendment when directed at public officials. We may be veering into dangerous territory - viewpoint discrimination. If people are permitted to come to council meetings and tell us how wonderful they think elected officials are, they can do the opposite as well.
Combined with provisions allowing removal of speakers and police enforcement based on vague standards, the policy creates potential constitutional risks and invites selective enforcement. This proposal could make it harder for working families, seniors, people with disabilities, and those without reliable internet access to participate in their own local government. I believe it is a step backward at a time when College Park needs more openness, not less.
P. Consideration of and action on a request to approve an ordinance adjusting Councilmember salaries. The proposed ordinance establishes annual salaries of $58,000.00 for Councilmembers. This item is sponsored by all Councilmembers.
Q. Consideration of and action on a request of a Resolution Establishing Monthly Vehicle and Housing Allowances for Mayor and Council. This item is sponsored by all Councilmembers.
These items were additions to the agenda Sunday night.
And then there was another update.
The proposed ordinance would more than double council salaries from $24,215 to $58,000 per year. This raise would come without any analysis, benchmarking, or public justification. When paired with the newly proposed $2,000 monthly housing allowance and $750 monthly vehicle stipend, each councilmember would receive roughly $91,000 per year, nearly four times the current compensation. That does not even include the $4,800 utility allowance each member of the governing body (and every city employee who lives within our city limits) receives. Contrary to the agenda title, the housing and vehicle allowance resolution does not include the mayor; it is only for councilmembers.
This shift could make people quit their jobs and run for office to get a pay raise.
The packet does not include a fiscal impact statement, a funding source, a workload justification, or any indication that these raises would take effect after the next election, leaving the appearance of self-dealing. My colleagues may argue that the recent election results reflect the trust our community has in us. However, that trust is not a justification for a 139% salary increase. Decisions like this fracture that trust and defy common sense.
