1/5/2026 Meeting Preview
Happy New Year! I hope you had a safe and restful holiday season.
You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our first meeting of 2026. 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 by signing up for public comment here, starting at 4:00 pm on the day of the meeting, or in person at City Hall starting at 4:00 pm. If you have feedback for Mayor and Council directly, you can email us.
NOTE: This is the first meeting with the new public comment policy. In my preview of the November 17, 2025 meeting, I noted my concerns about the adoption of this policy, especially considering it was placed on the agenda the day before the meeting with very little opportunity for the public to weigh in on this significant shift in how we engage with our stakeholders. I still do not agree with this change. I cannot be in support of initiatives that make it more difficult for people to have their voices heard.
REGULAR SESSION
9. 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 since the start of 2024.
Additionally, for FY2025–26, 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.
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.
As this fiscal year continues, I will provide updates detailing how your community enhancement dollars are being spent. You deserve to know where and how your tax dollars are being invested.
You can see how community enhancement funds have been spent since the beginning of the fiscal year on July 1st through October 6, 2025 by clicking here. I will continue to supplement this information as I receive additional ledgers.
I have also received questions about our overall spending. You can see all of the payments the city has made this fiscal year below. I will also update these records as I receive them. (Note: there is some overlap in the earlier information as I changed the parameters of my requests.)
B. Consideration of and action on a request to replace the commercial washer in the Jail. Davis Commercial Laundry Solutions in the amount of $11,555.00 (Preferred), also, TLC Tri-State Laundry Co., in the amount of $16,857.00. This item is being requested by Interim Chief of Police, Sharis McCrary. This will service all wards. This is a budgeted item, (FY 2025-26; R & M Furn, & Equip - G/L 100.3400.52.5710 -$974.; R&M Bldg. - G/L 100.3200.52.5749 -$4,581.; R&M Furn & Equip - G/L 100.3200.52.5710 - $6,000.
Our purchasing policy (p. 17) requires formal competitive procurement for purchases over $10,000. Since this item is $11,555, I have asked staff to clarify which exception applies here, or explain why a formal solicitation was not required.
UPDATE (11:45 am, 1/4/2026): Staff shared that only two vendors were found with the product and the procurement manager gave them permission to proceed and place the item on the agenda for consideration.
I. Consideration of and action on a request for approval of a Professional Services Agreement with Ignite Resource Center for six months in the amount of $25,000. 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 specifically identified in the FY2025-26 budget.
Of the $25,000 proposed for this agenda item, 88% ($22,000) would be allocated for staff salaries and administrative costs per the scope of services. The remaining 12%, or $3,000, would be for workshop and seminar expenses.
Ignite Resource Center has done good work in our community. Over the past several years, we haven’t received any information regarding the overall impact of the organization although I have asked on several occasions. I am encouraged this contract requires quarterly reporting requirements so we can truly understand the effect of the program.
J. Consideration of and action on a request to approve JBF Communications Consulting services for $4,583.50 per month to support Ward 3 projects and initiatives. It is a non capital item GL #100-1100-52-6170. This item is requested by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold. This will service Ward 3.
This item was not specifically identified in the FY2025-26 budget.
Through the first quarter of the fiscal year, 54% of the funds in the contractual services account in the legislative budget had been used. That percentage includes both transactions and encumbrances. Contractual services is the funding source that has been identified for this agenda item.
Budget Performance Report, 7/1/2025-9/30/2025
You can see the full report here.
This report suggests we are already far over budget for this line item; more than double where we should have been as of September 30th. I have requested the budget detail from staff, which will show the specific items the $413,332.00 was designated for when the budget was approved in June 2025. I have also requested the year-to-date expenses in this category. When I receive them, I will share them with you.
I think that is one aspect of this issue, though. There is another that is indicative of where the governing body has trended as of late. While I am supportive of each of the members having support in the form of a legislative aide, the proliferation of staffers that we have seen in the past eighteen months is, in my opinion, beyond the needs of part-time public servants. When I came into office in 2020, all five members of the governing body relied on administrative support from one person. That arrangement was not practical. Recently some of my colleagues have increased the number of individuals who answer directly to them, typically through the use of community enhancement funds via consent agendas. In our form of government where the city manager is in charge of day-to-day operations, a team of contractors who are under the supervision of a council member can create ambiguity and confusion for staff and other stakeholders.
The subject communications consulting position would have an annualized salary of $55,000 (automatically renewable for three additional six-month terms for a total of two years), to “provide high-level communications support services to strengthen public trust, enhance leadership visibility, and ensure clear, consistent, and strategic messaging on behalf of Councilwoman Tracie Arnold.” (See Scope of Work.)
10. Regular Business
A. Consideration of and action on a request of a Resolution to Temporarily Suspend Certain City Administration Fees until March 31, 2026. This item is sponsored by Councilman Joe Carn.
Through the first quarter of FY2025-26, our general fund expenses exceeded revenues by more than $6.5 million. Some of this is to be expected, as our revenue is not received evenly throughout the year. Property taxes and business license fees are predominately received in the third quarter (January-March).
Budget Performance Report, 7/1/2025-9/30/2025
However, we need to understand historical trends before making a decision of this magnitude. I have asked staff how this first quarter deficit compares with years past. I’ll share more information when I receive it. We also need a plan to deal with the loss of three months of permitting fees if this plan is approved. In 2025, we collected over $150,000 from January-March.
Outside of the fiscal concerns, I am still not in favor of this initiative. If the insistence of my colleague from Ward 2 at our last meeting to make this proposal a reality had occurred in a vacuum, it would be one thing. But it did not. This appeared on our agenda after the termination of former City Manger Lindell Miller, who claimed that her dismissal was connected to her refusal to waive permitting fees and the issuance of a stop work order at 2135 Godby Rd. (formerly Chelsea Gardens). Since that time, the council voted to approve a $100,000 separation agreement with Ms. Miller that prohibits her from commenting further on these matters.
Open records information reflects a stop work order was issued at the property in early November, because permits had not been obtained. It appears there is more work to be done at 2135 Godby Rd., given that the entrance is fenced off to restrict access, tenants are not occupying the premises and there are still buildings in need of repair, with issues such as broken windows. I do not believe we should not be involved in the appearance of giving an advantage to someone who has attempted to circumvent our rules.
UPDATE (12:35 pm, 1/5/2026): First quarter deficits in FY2023-24 and FY2024-25 were $4.3 million and $4.5 million, respectively.
C. Consideration of and action on a request to approve RFP 26-22, awarding the contract for Digital Marketing Services for Main Street to Pivot Path LLC in the amount of $62,000. Pivot Path has demonstrated the experience, strategic insight, and creative capabilities necessary to elevate the visibility and engagement of the Main Street program. This agenda item is being requested by Mayor Pro-Tem Jamelle McKenzie. This is a budgeted item. Fund account # Ward 1 Capital Improvement 100.1100.54.7181
This item was not specifically identified in the FY2025-26 budget. I agree with the Interim City Manager’s decision to place this in the regular business portion of the agenda.
Promoting Main Street and investing in ways to bring more people into our downtown is a good thing. Supporting our small businesses, increasing foot traffic, and strengthening College Park’s visibility are goals I fully support. My concerns regarding this agenda item aren’t about whether Main Street deserves attention. It absolutely does, along with the rest of our community.
First, I hope this particular program will be under the supervision of the Main Street Manager. Staff should be in charge of this initiative, not the governing body. The contract is not clear in that regard.
Second, the city entered into a significant agreement with the CP Historical Preservation Conservancy at our November 17th meeting, even though the nonprofit entity itself was created just days earlier. At the same time, the city already has an $80,000 professional services contract with Destination College Park, led by the same individual. That agreement includes performance and retention bonuses tied to increased tourism activity. Now, we are also moving forward with a separate $62,000 contract with another firm to handle digital marketing and tourism promotion for Main Street.
The issue is not simply duplication of effort, but alignment of incentives and accountability. If a new vendor is paid to generate increased tourism, Destination College Park could potentially benefit from bonus provisions without having performed the work that produced those results. When public dollars are involved, we have an obligation to ensure scopes are clearly defined, roles are distinct, and outcomes are directly attributable to the entities being paid. Supporting Main Street should be done within the confines of fiscal responsibility.
Lastly, the funds for this initiative should not be coming from an account designated for capital improvements as marketing services would not be a capital expense.
E. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a $50,000 allocation to the nonprofit, Learning Innovation Alliance (LIA) for the development and implementation of the workforce and business programs to support projects and initiatives for Ward 3. This is a non-capital item G/L #100-1100-52-6170. This item is requested by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold. This will service Ward 3.
This proposal would allocate $50,000 per year to Learning Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit incorporated just weeks ago, through a Professional Services Agreement with automatic renewals that could commit the city for up to three years. The agreement states that Learning Innovation Alliance would administer no less than $150,000 in grants to Ward 3 businesses over three years, while the city would pay the organization $50,000 per year in compensation during that same period. What is unclear is whether taxpayers are being asked to commit $150,000 or $300,000 total when administrative payments and grant funds are combined. I have asked staff for clarification on this issue. When I learn more, I’ll let you know.
I am concerned about the apparent lack of a competitive process for this initiative, entrusting a nonprofit with no track record with a contract that is automatically renewable for up to three years, and ambiguity in the contract between service delivery and grant administration. This program, per the agenda memo, “will be used exclusively for programs and services benefiting Ward 3.” I think if it is a taxpayer-funded program, it needs be open to all residents. Furthermore, the agenda memo indicates the funding source would be the same account that I discussed above, in which 54% of the funds have been used through the first quarter of the fiscal year.
UPDATE (3:45 pm, 1/6/2026): We received the slides that were to be presented at the council meeting via e-mail last night. You can see them here. We were also provided a Q&A about the program. I’ve uploaded it for your review.
