12/1/2025 Meeting Preview
I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving!
You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our first meeting of December. 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
1. Presentation from Mauldin & Jenkins Certified Public Accountants to provide Audit Services to the City.
There is no documentation in the workshop packet for this item.
I am, however, encouraged we may be considering moving back to Mauldin & Jenkins for our audit services. I shared in our last meeting that I am concerned we will yet again not meet the deadline of December 31st to have our audit complete. The FY2024 audit, performed by another firm, took over nine months to finish. That level of performance was not acceptable, even with the lack of stability we had on our finance team. I look forward to the presentation.
UPDATE, 6:50 pm, 12/1/2025: I overlooked the presentation on our new website. You can find it here.
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. I have received some of that information and I will continue to supplement as I receive additional ledgers.
A. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Jay Productions Agency as the Ward 1 Community Events Consultant in the amount of $36,000 This is a budgeted item. FUND: Ward 1 Community Enhancement Non - Capital Funds. GL Account #100.1100.52.7281. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.
This item was not identified in the FY2025-2026 budget.
Jay Productions Agency had a contract with the city that expired on November 30, 2025.
Recently, our procurement manager shared his approach regarding professional services agreements. He will be following the State of Georgia’s standards for moving forward, due to the lack of clarity in our own policies and procedures.
This new contract is being presented as a professional services agreement, but event consulting is not a professional service under Georgia procurement rules. It requires no state license, certification, or regulated professional credentials. There is also no competitive bidding, no RFP, and no sole-source justification in the packet.
I believe this item should be removed from the consent agenda and put through the competitive procurement process.
B. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Professional Services Agreement with Hydroecology as the Main Street Transportation Planner in the amount of $30,000. This is a budgeted item. FUND: Ward 1 Community Enhancement (Capital) GL Account # 100.1100.54.7181. This is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.
This item was not identified in the FY2025-2026 budget.
There is no doubt Main Street is in need of improved transportation flow.
John Duke, the owner of Hydroecology North America, has poured his passion and his expertise into our community for decades. We are a better city because of his efforts. I do have questions about the expertise necessary for this project aligning with Hydroecology’s services, however.
The agenda memo states, “Hydroecology NA Inc. is a qualified professional services firm with expertise in transportation planning, environmental analysis, and urban mobility strategies. The firm was selected based on its demonstrated experience in corridor planning, multimodal transportation design, and community-based planning initiatives.”
I do not see any information in the packet to suggest there was a competitive process for this project. Hydroecology North America’s website lists the firm’s areas of expertise as “technical, legal, and ecological expertise for floodplain analysis.”
I believe this item should be removed from the consent agenda and put through the competitive procurement process.
C. Consideration of and action on a request for approval to allow Vision Fitness LLC, to launch College Park Wellness, a city-supported initiative to make College Park a HALO City—one that promotes a Healthy Active Lifestyle Outdoors in Ward 2, in the amount of $35,000.00. This agenda item is being requested by Councilman Joe Carn as a pilot starting in ward 2, but can eventually cover all wards. This is a budgeted item. FUND: Community enhancement- Non-Capital (G/L Account #1001100527282) FY2026. This will service Ward 2.
This item was not identified in the FY2025-2026 budget.
Promoting healthy lifestyles is a worthy goal. We should absolutely be working toward promoting wellness in the city. Jay Shoates, the owner of Vision Fitness, LLC, does amazing work in the community. None of those things are the issue.
The issue is that this service should have been subject to our competitive procurement process. Approving this Agreement for Ongoing Provision of Goods and Services without following those steps would be inconsistent with both state procurement standards and our own internal rules.
I believe this item should be removed from the consent agenda and put through the competitive procurement process.
D. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the hardware upgrade for TV-23 under the City’s Exception Policy, recognizing the channel’s critical role in broadcasting City Council meetings, public notices, and emergency alerts. This upgrade is necessary to maintain government transparency, ensure uninterrupted public access, and support the City’s commitment to open and responsive communication. This item is being requested by Gerald Walker, Director of Communications. This is a budgeted item from GL Acct 100 1570 52 6130 Miscellaneous Services in the amount of $14,700.00 and GL Acct 100 1570 52 6200 Training $500.00.
It is essential that TV23 continue to broadcast for our stakeholders who rely upon it. We have also been discussing an upgrade of the broadcasting equipment for at least the last two years, maybe more.
I believe this item should be removed from the consent agenda and put through the competitive procurement process.
K. Consideration of and action on a request to replace the decking at the Historic College Park Golf Course Event Center. Based on normal wear and tear there is extensive rotting of the deck boards, railings and side coverage presenting possible liability if an injury occurred. The cost is $16,558. The item is requested by Yanous Barner, Executive Director GICC, Arena and Golf Course. FUND: R/M Building G/L #520-6122-52- 5746 in fiscal year 2026. This will service Ward 2.
The agenda memo references “normal wear and tear.” Normal wear and tear in and of itself would not put this repair in the category of an emergency procurement. The documentation for this agenda item supports that conclusion. One quote for the project was obtained in September, a second quote was obtained in October (the pages on the link are out of order - the last page should be first), and another quote was solicited in November. When a department has the time to solicit quotes over a period of several months, it cannot reasonably claim that the work is urgent enough to bypass normal procurement requirements. Under the City’s Purchasing Policy, purchases over $10,000 require competitive solicitation and proper documentation.
I believe this item should be removed from the consent agenda and put through the competitive procurement process.
O. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a cooperative purchasing agreement with Williams Scotsman, Inc. under OMNIA Contract R210503 in the amount of $42,828.25 for the provision of a mobile office trailer to support the Botanical Garden Project. This item is requested by Councilman Gay. This is a budgeted item. Fund FY26: 275-4975-54-7655
This item was not identified in the FY2025-2026 budget.
This agenda item appears properly structured under the OMNIA cooperative purchasing agreement. However, the packet shows that my colleague from Ward 4 signed the agreement on November 13, several days before the last council meeting on November 17th. Under the City Charter and Purchasing Policy, individual councilmembers have no authority to execute contracts or bind the City financially. That authority rests with the Mayor, the City Manager, or an authorized designee after Council approval. While the Council can choose to ratify the agreement retroactively, doing so should not obscure the fact that the contract was not properly executed in advance. Even when using a cooperative purchasing vehicle, the City’s approval process must be followed.
Q. Consideration of and action on a request to amend the existing piggyback agreement with Pinnacle Maintenance, LLC, increasing the contract amount by $100,000. This amendment will allow for the continued provision of essential maintenance services across City facilities without interruption. This item is being requested by Jamelle McKenzie, Mayor Pro-Tem. This is a budgeted item. FY26-Ward 1 Community Enhancement (Capital) GL Account 100-1100-54-7181.
This item was not identified in the FY2025-2026 budget.
The agenda memo includes an agreement to add an additional $100,000 to Pinnacle’s contract. In that agreement, there is a reference to a scope of work in Exhibit A. However, there is nothing attached to Exhibit A. It is blank.
I believe this item should be removed from the consent agenda so the scope of work can be outlined. We should not be spending $100,000 without having a clear understanding of the deliverables.
R. Consideration of and action on a request to approve RFP 2025-060325 – Compliance and Financial Audit Services to Mauldin & Jenkins, CPA and Advisors. This item is a budget item, GL Account #100-1512-52-5460, Audit Fees. This item is being requested by Michael Hicks, Interim City Manager.
While the agenda memo states that this went through an RFP process, the packet does not include any of the underlying procurement materials, such as the list of respondents, evaluation criteria, scoring sheets, or pricing comparisons. Without that information, neither the governing body nor the public can evaluate how the selection was made or whether the recommended firm represents the best selection for the City. The use of an RFP was the correct and appropriate procurement method, and while the nature of auditing work often involves specialized expertise, it is still important for the governing body and other stakeholders to have access to the full procurement record before approving a multi-year engagement. The absence of the RFP documentation prevents a complete and informed evaluation of the award recommendation.
I have requested the scoring information for this RFP and will update this post if I receive it.
UPDATE, 12/1/2025, 3:50 pm: Here is the RFP and score sheet for this item.
9. Regular Business
A. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the award of RFP 26-10 – Botanical Garden Project to one of the two shortlisted firms: Precision 2000, Inc. or Langiappe Development Company, Inc. Funding for this project was previously approved by Council. The vendor selection was conducted through a competitive two-step procurement process, which included a qualifications-based evaluation followed by a detailed review of proposals and presentations. Based on the evaluation committee’s scoring and consensus, Precision 2000, Inc. was ranked as the top firm, demonstrating the strongest qualifications, project approach, and alignment with the City’s vision for the Botanical Garden. Langiappe Development Company, Inc. was ranked second, also presenting a strong proposal and relevant experience. Council is now asked to approve the award of the project to one of these two highly qualified firms.
Precision 2000, Inc’s bid for the construction of the botanical garden is $10,917,582.44.
Langiappe Development Company, Inc.’s bid is $10,512,806.90.
The city has committed $3.75 million to the botanical garden conservancy through 2030.
Either one of these proposals would push the total amount of the garden to over $14 million. That doesn’t even take into account the costs that have already been incurred.
At every meeting, the price of this project continues to rise.
We need to pump the brakes, get a feasibility study and get a real understanding of the total costs of this project before we spend additional taxpayer dollars in a piecemeal fashion.
B. Consideration of and action on a request to approve RFP 26-11 for Comprehensive Plan services, awarding the contract to Inspire Placemaking Collective, Inc. in the amount of $145,230.00. This plan will serve as a strategic framework for guiding land use, economic development, transportation, housing, and community engagement across the City of College Park. The vendor was selected through a competitive procurement process. This proposal is requested by Lenise Lyons, City Planner. This is a budgeted item. Fund FY26 Municipal Planning 100- 7520-52-5530
This is an important component of our vision as a city. I hope as opportunities arise to participate in the comprehensive plan next year, you will take advantage and make sure your voice is heard.
C. Consideration of and action taken for an emergency replacement on the GICC's roof. We recommend repairing half the roof in this 2026 fiscal year and address the other half in the next fiscal year. Total repairs will cost $6 Million for the entire roof. We recommend doing half in F/Y 2026 in the amount of $3 Million and the other half in F/Y 2027 in the amount of $3 Million. Item requested by Yanous Barner Exec. Director, GICC, Arena & Golf Course. This is a budgeted item. FUND: Other Equipment Replacement. GL#555-4970-54-7640 for F/Y 2026. This will service Ward 2.
As someone who is in the building regularly, I can attest that the roof has had leaks for quite some time. This isn’t a new development. The timeline in the packet reflects that reality as well; the roof evaluation process has occurred over the last six weeks. While the agenda memo states staff has “received quotes from Omnia Partners Cooperative Purchasing," typically the contracts Omnia has with the vendors would be in the packet as well. They are not.
Nothing in the packet indicates an emergency procurement, and this project should still move through the City’s regular process so we can fully evaluate the cost, scope, and long-term value before committing millions of dollars in repairs.
D. Consideration of and action on a request from the Ludacris Foundation and the Ashley Clay Experience for the City of College Park to sponsor the Gateway to Greatness talent extravaganza in April 2026 bringing it to the Southside. The proposed sponsorship is $50,000 per Ward and Mayor's office. The item is requested by Yanous Barner, Executive Director for GICC, Arena and Golf Course: FUND: This is a sponsored item.
I have tremendous respect for the Ludacris Foundation and the positive work they do in our community and communities across our region. Spending a quarter of a million dollars on a single event feels out of step with the larger economic headwinds we’re facing, though. The packet includes no budget, no breakdown of how the money would be used, no detailed plan, and no explanation of what our residents would receive in return for such a large investment. At a time when we are already stretching limited tourism dollars across multiple major commitments, including long-standing maintenance needs and multimillion-dollar capital projects, dedicating $250,000 to a single day with no clear return just doesn’t make fiscal sense to me. Our community deserves careful stewardship of its resources, especially right now.
Also on October 6, the council allocated $50,000 from Ward 1’s community enhancement funds for this same initiative.
E. Consideration of and action on a request for an Ordinance to Establish the College Park Commercial Leasing Relations Commission. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem McKenzie.
The idea behind the commission is to give businesses a place to raise concerns about commercial leasing issues, share challenges they’re experiencing with landlords or tenants, and receive guidance. The commission would operate in an advisory capacity only. It would not have the ability to enforce leases, set rents, or interfere with private contracts. While the ordinance establishes the structure of the commission, it leaves a lot of information out, including what resources would be needed to support the commission’s work. Commercial leasing disputes are typically governed by state law and private agreements, so it’s important to be clear about what problem this new commission is intended to solve and how it would fit into existing processes. Before creating a new government body, the community deserves to understand the purpose, scope, and cost of the commission and how it would actually help College Park businesses.
G. Consideration of and action on a request of a Resolution to Temporarily Suspend Certain City Administration Fees for 60 Days. This item is sponsored by Councilman Joe Carn.
As you are probably aware, at our last meeting on November 17, our city manager Lindell Miller was fired. Later that week, she shared her thoughts about her termination with the media.
In light of her allegations, the optics of this agenda item (which appears to have been initiated the day after her termination) are terrible.
This opens us up to a lot of scrutiny. There is no good reason to waive these fees, and a lot of reasons to keep the fees exactly as they are.
H. Consideration and an action to approve an Ordinance to Adopt Article XVIII (Short-Term Rentals) Within Chapter 5 of the City Code. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.
Right now, short-term rentals (STRs) are banned outright in College Park, but the reality is that they’re already operating here. A search of some of the most popular STR websites confirms that. The State of Georgia is already collecting hotel/motel tax from those stays and remitting it to us. We currently have no real way to ensure safety, address nuisance properties, or hold operators accountable. While I’m open to shifting from a total ban to a regulated system, the current proposal needs additional work. For example, the suggested $150 annual permit fee isn’t proportionate to the time and staff resources required to ensure a home actually meets life-safety standards. If we want a system that protects neighborhoods and doesn’t overburden staff, we have to get the policy details right.
This is exactly the kind of issue that deserves discussion in a workshop session. We could hear from staff, look at what other cities are doing, understand the real costs involved, and make the adjustments necessary to build an ordinance that truly works for residents, homeowners, and other city stakeholders.
