11/3/2025 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 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.

Progress note: At the last meeting, I spoke during public comment about some of my concerns. This agenda reflects some steps in the right direction. There is more information about some agenda items and documentation in the packet that reflects our procurement process has been followed. We’re still not there yet, but it’s clear my comments made a difference.

Tonight I have signed up to speak again at public comment, but by the time I came to City Hall at 8:45 am to place my name on the list, there were 12 speakers ahead of me. I may not get a chance to share my thoughts. However, I want to share with you the email I was planning to read. You can see it here. In it, my colleague from Ward 1 expresses concern about the statement from our former finance director, Terry Jackson. I share those concerns, and do not believe, as she stated in this email, that the FY2024 audit addresses her issues, as Mr. Jackson did not join the city until after the time covered by the audit.

The fact remains that we have a number of clearly problematic issues to address, and I stand ready to support my colleagues — and anyone else in this community — who is ready to get us back on the right track.

WORKSHOP SESSION

1. Veterans Day Recognition Discussion. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold.

While I am supportive of this initiative, the agenda packet reflects that there is no fiscal impact to the city in adding another holiday, which is not entirely accurate. I would hope we can get that information before making a decision.

2. This memorandum outlines proposed assistance strategies for College Park Utilities customers who are directly impacted by the Federal government shutdown. These measures are designed to provide short-term financial relief and connect customers with supportive resources while ensuring the City maintains fiscal responsibility. This item is being requested by Cynthia Hammond, Finance Director, and William Scott, Utilities Customer Service Manager. Cost not determined for the non-budgeted item, G/L Account #. This item will service all Wards.

Mr. Scott’s proposals are as follows :

1. Waiver of Late Fees Temporarily suspend late payment penalties for verified federal employees affected by the shutdown to help ease financial burdens.

2. Flexible Payment Arrangements Offer extended payment plans and installment agreements for customers unable to meet full payment obligations during this period.

3. Utilization of Current Assistance Programs Expand eligibility or prioritize access within existing City assistance programs (e.g., utility assistance, hardship funds) to include customers affected by the shutdown.

4. Community Partnerships Collaborate with local vendors, businesses, and nonprofits to develop creative relief solutions, such as: Discount programs, Food or household supply donations, Temporary employment or resource-sharing initiatives

5. Resource and Counseling Support Provide impacted customers with information and referral services to outside agencies, including: State and county social service agencies, Nonprofit and faith-based organizations, Financial counseling and budgeting assistance

I think these are very reasonable measures given the current federal shutdown.

3. Discussion regarding current salaries of Police and Fire Department employees; for certified and non-certified. This item will be presented by Christa Gilbert, Interim Director of Human Resources and Risk Management and Cynthia Hammond, Interim Finance Director.

This is an important discussion. However, there is no supporting documentation in the packet, so I am unsure how this conversation will unfold.

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 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. When I receive it, I will share it with you.

G. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a for a Change Order in the amount of $122,124.16 for the Gateway Pedestrian Bridge Project. The change order addresses unforeseen costs incurred due to additional welding procedures required by WSP/GDOT, which caused delays for subcontractor, King Fabrication.

This was not included on the agenda that was posted Friday. The city clerk informed us this morning of the oversight. I have asked for the supporting documentation and it has not been provided yet.

UPDATE: This was my error. It was in the packet.

N. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the award of RFP 26-21 – Residential Stability Program to Georgia Micro Enterprises Network, the top-ranked vendor following the competitive evaluation process. Their proposal demonstrated strong alignment with program goals, capacity to deliver services effectively, and a proven track record in community-based economic development.. This is a budgeted item. Fund: G/L Community Enhancement Non-Capital 100-1100-52-7282. This item is sponsored by Councilman Joe Carn.

There was a discussion at a workshop session regarding this issue. Unfortunately the actual RFP is not in the packet. I have requested the total price and the RFP specifics, but have not received them as of 4:00 pm on 11/3/2025. This is something that should be moved to the regular session, or perhaps moved to the next meeting if all of the information is not available.

O. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the funding in the amount of $250,000 to support the renovation of the Main Street Train Depot. Upon approval of funding, the project will proceed through the cooperative procurement process, ensuring compliance with purchasing guidelines and leveraging cost-effective vendor partnerships. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie. This is a budgeted project under Fund: TPD, GL Account #275-4975-52-6300.

The information in the packet does not meet the standards for a cooperative procurement. There’s no mention of a state contract number, no Sourcewell or Omnia listing, and no documentation of a prior competitive bid by another government agency. The packet includes only cost spreadsheets—no memo, no justification, no proof of how the vendor was selected. Without those elements, I’m concerned this can’t legally qualify as a cooperative purchase.

That’s especially troubling given the growing pattern of public projects being handed off to outside groups like Destination College Park once the city spends the money to renovate them. If that’s the plan here, it should be stated plainly and competitively bid. They should not quietly be slipped through under the guise of “cooperative purchasing.” Meanwhile, the Tourism Product Development (TPD) fund that has historically covered maintenance at the GICC is being drained by these kinds of projects. With our convention center in need of a major roof replacement, I am concerned we may soon find that the funds that have historically maintained one of our biggest economic engines have already been spent elsewhere.

REGULAR BUSINESS

E. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the updated Resolution No. 2025-30, 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 agenda item was approved at the October 20, 2025 City Council meeting. This is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

There is no documentation in the packet that reflects this is a piggyback contract, despite the agenda transmittal memo. Also, the agenda memo states the project is $1,145,000, while the resolution reflects $145,000. As I’ve said before, I’m concerned with the direction the botanical garden is heading. This should not be a project led by one elected official. The lack of oversight from staff is deeply troubling and opens the door for problems.

F. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the piggybacking of ITB 24-101670 to Executive Realty Solutions in the amount of $38,491.04. The proposed scope of work will address necessary upgrades to the recycle gate located at Frontage and Herschel Road, a key access point for the City’s sanitation and recycling operations. This item is requested by Councilman Gay of Ward 4. This is not a budgeted item. Fund: G/L

There is no general ledger account number listed. I have asked the city manager to provide this information, but do not have it yet. So I can’t share where the money for this expenditure is coming from, and it is not budgeted. That’s a problem. The information about the piggybacking contract is also not present, so it’s impossible to say if we’ve done this the right way based upon the information provided.

G. Consideration of an Ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Article VII of the City’s Code of Ordinances to restructure and clarify provisions relating to the City Municipal Court, including the establishment of internal administrative divisions, judicial appointments, and solicitor roles.

This was not included on the agenda that was posted Friday. The city clerk informed us this morning of the oversight. I have asked for the supporting documentation and it has not been provided yet.

UPDATE: This was my error. It was in the packet.

H. Consideration of an action on a request to amend the current GA Works Litter Cleanup contract. The contract with Georgia Works for continued litter abatement services in designated areas throughout the City of College Park. Georgia Works has demonstrated consistent performance and reliability in maintaining cleanliness and improving the visual appeal of targeted zones. The contract will be 5hrs./2 days a week, in the amount of $103,290/year. To be paid weekly at $1,993.20, This agenda item is being requested by Frances Kennedy Executive Director of Keep College Park Beautiful and Carlton Newton Superintendent of Building and Grounds. This will service Ward 1,2,3, and 4.

This is a significant increase of an existing contract (more than double the previous amount) that was not budgeted. There is no indication where these funds will come from in the agenda packet.

J. Consideration of and action on a request to authorize Jewel of the South. Inc, and Kemi Construction Company Inc., to install sidewalks along the City’s right of way at various locations across four wards. The city currently has a remaining TPLOST fund balance of $728,000.00 which will be evenly allocated among the four wards in the amount of $182,000 each. This agenda item is being requested by Highway, Streets and Storm Water Superintendent, Raymond Cotton. This is not a budgeted item. FUND: (G/L Account #235-4962-52-5760)-FY 2026) This will service all Wards.

K. Consideration of an action on a request to authorize Jewel of the South, Inc., and Kemi Construction Co. Inc., to install retaining walls along the City’s right-of-way at the following locations: Rugby Avenue (Ward 1), Adam Street (Ward 3), and Lakeshore Drive (Ward 4). The total project cost is $148,950. Funding will be drawn from the available $876,000 in TSPLOST funds, leaving a remaining balance of $728,050. The remaining funds will be allocated towards the installation of a critical component necessary to complete all outstanding sidewalk projects. This request is submitted by Raymond Cotton, Superintendent of Highway, Streets, and Storm

Sidewalk projects are good investments. I support them wholeheartedly. They improve walkability, safety, and accessibility across our neighborhoods. I’m hopeful the quotes attached to the agenda memo reflect the overall sidewalk needs of the wards, and that each councilmember will be tasked at the meeting with selecting projects that do not exceed $182,000.

If that is not the case, these items aren’t fully funded. We would need a clear plan for covering the gap. On top of that, the packet doesn’t indicate where the sidewalk quotes came from.

M. Consideration of and action on an ordinance to amend Chapter 5 (“Buildings; Construction; and Related Matters”), Article I (“In General”), Division 2 (“Administrative Procedures”), Section 5-12 (“Permits”), Subsection (f) (“Conditions of the Permit”) of the City Code to shorten the time limits for commencing and extending building / demolition permits.

N. Consideration of and action on a request an ordinance to amend Chapter 5 (“Buildings; Construction; and Related Matters”), Article II (“Building Code”) of the Code of Ordinances by adopting Section 5-26.6 (“Interim Securing of Unsafe or Unsecured Properties”).

Given some of the recent controversies surrounding code enforcement, I am concerned that these seemingly positive-sounding measures could be turned against property owners in an effort to take their property, especially when liens are placed. We do have to take practical measures to address vacant and dilapidated properties. I am uncertain if this is the best approach. A discussion at a workshop would be a good way to understand the concerns surrounding the issue and then formulate a legislative response from that. Unfortunately, that has not been our approach.

O. Consideration of and action of Resolution Designating the Mayor and City Council as the College Park Redevelopment Agency Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-44-4(a). This item is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

P. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a resolution to designate certain real property within the City as Redevelopment Areas pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-44-6. This item is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

Just about everything I said about the council’s attempt to form an Urban Redevelopment Authority in my October 20, 2025 Meeting Preview still applies. I am concerned this is an attempt to consolidate power in the hands of the City Council for development and it will create a conflict with BIDA, the Business and Industrial Development Authority. It is not a good idea.

Q. Consideration of and action on a request for Adoption of a Resolution Designating “Robb Pitts Boulevard” as a Public Street Connecting Herschel Road and Global Gateway to the Roderick Gay Botanical Garden. This item is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

Earlier this year, although I did not vote on the matter, I shared my thoughts in a meeting that if the botanical garden was going to be named after anyone, it should be named after Councilmember Gay because of the years he had worked on the project.

I was wrong.

Hindsight has shown that it has emboldened my colleague in a way that is not beneficial to our city as a whole. It has seemingly created a sense of personal ownership that has jeopardized the future of this initially promising venture. When I came into office, I thought we should not name things after living individuals, and my views shifted a bit over time. However, the current situation has shown what can go wrong when we go down this road, which is why I would not be in support of this action.

R. Consideration of and action on a request to Adopt a Resolution Establishing a City-Owned Grocery Store Pilot Program to Address Food Insecurity and Promote Equitable Access to Healthy, Affordable Foods. This item is sponsored by Councilman Joe Carn.

The proposal to launch a city-owned grocery sounds appealing in theory. In practice, it pushes the city far beyond its core mission. An arbitrary figure of $200,000 has been assigned, yet there’s no business plan, feasibility study, or financial model showing how that number was calculated or what it’s supposed to cover. The packet doesn’t explain the details of this operation or how success would even be measured. It’s a concept without structure, oversight, or a path to sustainability. Cities can and should work to eliminate food deserts, but they do that by partnering with experienced grocers, nonprofits, and developers.

While the resolution indicates that “[t]he City may enter into partnerships with local farms, food producers, cooperatives, nonprofits, and private sector entities to support sourcing, distribution, and operations,” that is not something that should be optional. At this point, it would make a lot more sense to examine the feasibility of such an operation before committing to it. While the City of Atlanta has launched something similar, they used a number of private partners to make their market a reality. We should step back, take the time to examine this proposal and not rush into any project of this magnitude.