3/2/2026 Meeting Preview
UPDATE: Some of the information I posted regarding Item 10A below was incomplete. Our finance director shared at our meeting that one of the items I discussed was refunded. I have removed that part of the post. The remaining items I raised issues about were not addressed during our meeting and remain below for your review and consideration.
You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our first meeting in March. 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 at the meeting by signing up for public comment here, starting at 4:00 pm on the day of the meeting, or by signing up in person at City Hall starting at 4:00 pm. If you have feedback for Mayor and Council directly, you can email us.
This is our fifth meeting with our revised 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.
A note on Community Enhancement Funds:
In FY 2025–26, 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, 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.
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.
To see the latest spending information, visit How the Math is Mathing: An Ongoing Series.
WORKSHOP SESSION
1. Presentation on Airport West Community Improvement District expansion presentation to the City of College Park. Presented by Airport West Community Improvement District.
This is not a request for General Fund dollars and does not create a direct financial obligation for the City. As a self-taxing, public-private partnership, the CID enables property owners to pool resources to fund infrastructure, security, and other projects that improve the area surrounding the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
Key purposes and benefits for commercial property owners include enhanced public safety through 24-hour patrols, and area beautification and maintenance, including litter control and landscaping. Several commercial property owners in the area wish to join the CID, which would change the boundaries of the existing district. That requires council approval.
2. Presentation to Mayor and Council for the GICC to participate in the SCAD Sprint Student Collaboration Design Project for exterior signage design and building facade mural. Presented by Executive Director, Yanous Barner.
This is a proposed partnership between the Georgia International Convention Center and SCAD students for an intensive seven-day design sprint focused on campus wayfinding and exterior visual enhancement. Through this collaboration, student teams will develop comprehensive directional signage concepts for both indoor and outdoor navigation, create mural renderings for the building façade, and deliver a structured project management framework to guide future design implementation. The intellectual property will remain with GICC, giving the City flexibility for long-term use and adaptation.
I think this is a great idea. High-quality design matters, especially for a facility that serves as a front door to our city for visitors, event organizers, and partners. Thoughtful wayfinding improves safety, accessibility, and overall guest experience. Engaging emerging design talent also brings fresh perspective and innovation to our public spaces. If executed well, this partnership has the potential to elevate the aesthetic presence of the GICC while reinforcing College Park’s commitment to creativity, professionalism, and intentional growth.
4. Presentation on the Strategic Planning Retreat for Department Heads to embrace and collaborate on all strategic goals. Presented by Amber Batchelor, Batchelor & Bradley Insights Group.
Batchelor & Bradley Insights Group is the same firm that conducted the recent Mayor and Council retreat. The proposed department head retreat is structured around leadership development tools such as DISC behavioral assessments, Team Trust diagnostics, one-on-one preparation sessions, and facilitated strategy alignment work. The goal is to strengthen coordination among department heads and ensure clearer execution of the City’s strategic priorities as we move into a critical budget and comprehensive planning year.
The proposal includes defined deliverables. Up to 20 department heads would complete DISC and Trust assessments, with individual and group culture reports provided. Each participant would receive a one-on-one assessment review session prior to the retreat. At the conclusion of the two days, the firm would provide a formal summary report measuring team cohesion and trust levels, along with a drafted 30/60/90-day implementation roadmap assigning responsibilities and deadlines tied to the City’s goals. The City would retain ongoing access to the assessment reporting data, and the engagement includes full retreat logistics coordination.
The materials frame this as preparation for the April budget meetings and the 2026 Comprehensive Plan work, emphasizing urgency ahead of what is described as a high-stakes planning year. The specific dates for the retreat itself are not identified in the packet. Given the projected cost of $30,000, it will be important to ensure this investment produces measurable value. I also want to ensure that sufficient funds exist in the identified account to support this expenditure, particularly because a staff retreat of this scale was not discussed during last year’s budget deliberations. In addition to the written deliverables, I believe it would also be appropriate to solicit structured feedback from department heads following the retreat regarding its usefulness, applicability, and impact on their work.
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.
A. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Ulysses Grady Jr. in the amount of $42,750.00 for Engineer and Construction Manager services to support ongoing and upcoming City projects. This item is being requested by AB Woldehana, City Engineer. This is a budgeted item. Fund FY26 Consulting GL Account #100-1575-52-5510. This item will serve all wards.
B. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the Professional Services Agreement for City Planner Strategic Planning Initiatives at an hourly rate of $80 plus approved reimbursable expenses that include printing and mileage for professional zoning services. This item is being requested by Michael Hicks, Interim City Manager. This is a budgeted item. Fund FY26 Consulting GL Account #100-1300-52-6170. This will serve all wards.
Agenda items 9A and 9B involve professional services agreements funded through our FY26 consulting accounts. I have asked for the spending detail for each account and will share it with you when I receive it. William Johnston, the head of Strategic Planning Initiatives, LLC, worked as the city planner several years ago.
Under normal circumstances, these would be routine approvals. However, a recently filed grievance by the City’s former Procurement Manager alleges that two professional service agreements were executed without prior Council approval and in violation of the City’s Procurement Policy. One of the contracts referenced in that grievance involves the same individual listed under Item 9A.
These are allegations and deserve a fair, independent review. At the same time, they intersect directly with items now before Council. Procurement policies exist to ensure transparency and accountability, and they must be followed consistently. Before moving forward, it is appropriate to confirm if previous agreements were executed, whether work has already begun, and whether established procedures were fully observed. As such, I hope there will be an opportunity to remove these items from the Consent Agenda.
10. Regular Business
A. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the proposed recommended guidelines for the spending of Community Enhancement funds. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn.
The framing of this discussion as whether one office can “spend money” is a red herring. The question is whether procedures being proposed are consistent with the City Charter’s structure, which vests financial authority in the governing body. Under the structure of our government, Council adopts the annual budget and appropriates funds, the City Manager administers those funds and oversees day-to-day operations, and the Mayor presides and votes as a member of the governing body in the event of a tie. Community Enhancement funds for each member of the governing authority, including the Mayor, have already been approved as part of the FY2026 annual budget.
The City Manager currently has authority to approve expenditures up to $10,000 within the adopted budget. That authority comes from our Charter. Agenda Item 10A, however, would require that if the Mayor proposes use of Community Enhancement funds in any amount, a councilmember must determine whether to sponsor the request before it can even be placed on the agenda for Council consideration.
In practical terms, that means the Mayor would need permission from an individual councilmember simply to allow the governing authority to discuss an item. There is no such requirement in the Charter, and those who served before me as mayor never had to deal with these restrictions. Unfortunately, this proposal seems motivated more by politics than good policy. As I said during our last meeting, there is no question that any participatory budgeting project brought forth that is in excess of $10,000 would come before Council for approval.
If the Council wishes to strengthen spending procedures, I welcome that conversation. Any reforms, however, should apply equally to all offices, preserve the City Manager’s authority under the Charter while respecting the Charter’s allocation of roles, and focus first on ensuring strong reconciliation and documentation controls. We absolutely need to take action in this regard. Recent review of Community Enhancement and other spending has raised questions that deserve attention. For example:
Charges for event supplies appear both in reimbursement documentation and on a Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report (CCDR). The reimbursement request (see page 6), the CCDR filing (see page 13), and the FY25 Accounts Payable Invoice Statement are all available for review.
There is also a purchase of a large number of gift cards with no explanation beyond “Community Enhancement/Community Engagement,” along with other reimbursement submissions that contain little to no description of the public purpose. You can review those materials here: Example 1, Example 2, and Example 3.
This is by no means an exhaustive account of the spending under $10,000 that raises legitimate reconciliation and documentation questions. But it highlights a broader issue: our system is in need of reform when reimbursements are processed with little to no reasonable explanation of the public purpose. Whether the purchases are big or small, every dime with which we are entrusted is important. And the small things have a way of adding up. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting an independent, thorough and impartial investigation to review our internal controls and reconciliation procedures.
C. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Budget Modification to the Hospitality Fund to include projects approved during fiscal years 25 and 26 funded by the Tourist Product Development (TPD) in the amount of $12,269,060.93 account 275-4975-52-6300 FY2026. This item is being requested by Cynthia Hammond, Interim Finance Director. This item will service Wards 1, 3, and 4.
Council has approved funding for the following items:
Godby Road Park – $2,500,000.00
Price Barbershop – $1,160,000.00
Botanical Gardens – $1,911,836.83
Botanical Gardens – $652,224.10
Botanical Gardens – $5,400,000.00
Main Street Train Depot – $250,000.00
College Park Historical Preservation Conservancy – $250,000.00
Land Purchase, 2525 Roosevelt Highway – $145,000.00
Total: $12,269,060.93
I have asked staff what the existing balance of the TPD fund is. When I receive that information, I will share it with you.
D. Consideration of and action on a request to approve an Ordinance to Adopt Article XVIII (Short-Term Rentals) Within Chapter 5 of the College Park Code of Ordinances. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Jamelle McKenzie.
As we consider adopting a Short-Term Rental ordinance, it is important to acknowledge a basic reality: short-term rentals are already operating in our city. Whether we formally regulate them or not, the activity is occurring. The question before us is not whether short-term rentals exist. It is whether we will establish a clear, enforceable framework to manage them responsibly.
The proposed Short-Term Rental ordinance requires neighbor consent but allows the City Manager or designee to waive that requirement if it is determined that the rental will not adversely affect surrounding properties or if consent is “unreasonably withheld.” While this avoids granting private citizens absolute veto power, it creates a hybrid system that gives significant discretion to the City Manager.
That discretion carries political realities that should not be ignored. Short-term rentals can generate strong opinions, both in support and opposition. When a waiver decision rests with a single individual, particularly in emotionally charged neighborhood disputes, it can invite pressure from applicants, neighbors, and community stakeholders. Even if decisions are made fairly, the perception of influence or inconsistency can be damaging.
If our goal is to protect neighborhoods while balancing economic opportunity, there are more durable tools available, such as density limits, owner-occupancy requirements, strong nuisance enforcement, and clear revocation standards for violations. Those mechanisms regulate conduct rather than delegating authority.
As we evaluate this ordinance, we must ensure that whatever framework we adopt is legally sound, consistently applied, and enforceable in practice. Protecting neighborhoods is important. So is maintaining fairness, clarity, and the rule of law. I think placing this ordinance on the workshop agenda for another discussion would be a good idea. There are a number of details that still need to be worked out.
