3/23/2026 Meeting Preview

You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our second 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.

In my preview of the November 17, 2025 meeting, I raised my concerns about the adoption of a new public comment policy that eliminated the ability for comments to be emailed and read into the record. This change was placed on the agenda the day before the meeting, leaving little opportunity for the public to weigh in on a significant shift in how we engage with our stakeholders. I continue to disagree with this decision. I cannot support 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 of the World Cup 2026 Visitor Activation Plan. Presented by Mercedes Miller with the Atlanta Airport District Convention & Visitors Bureau.

The Atlanta Airport District Convention & Visitors Bureau will be sharing information about a campaign called "Kick It in the District," a plan to position College Park as the welcoming front door to Atlanta for the millions of fans passing through Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

The plan has three pillars: recruiting local bars and restaurants as official watch party venues (complete with welcome kits and social media support), installing branded street pole banners along our hospitality corridor by April–May, and distributing marketing materials broadly to College Park businesses. The ask of the City is to help spread awareness, support banner installation, and amplify the campaign through our official channels.

This is a real opportunity for our local business community, and I'm looking forward to hearing more.

2. Presentation on Ignite Resource Center. Presented by Rose Stewart.

Ignite Resource Center has been working in College Park since 2019. The proposed agreement covers July 2026 through June 2027 at a cost of $50,000, paid in two installments of $25,000 each. The budget breaks down as follows: $24,000 for a part-time Executive Director, $10,000 for two part-time Resource Specialists, $6,000 for workshop expenses, and $10,000 for office expenses.

This agreement covers FY2027, which runs from July 2026 through June 2027. We have not yet had budget discussions for FY27, and we still have a full quarter remaining in FY26. Committing $50,000 in public funds to a specific contract before those conversations have taken place is not how this process should work.

Additionally, the proposed agreement does not include any formal reporting requirements, performance metrics, or check-in points for the City to evaluate how the work is going during the contract term. For a $50,000 public investment, residents deserve to know how many people are being served, what resources they are being connected to, and whether the programming is actually taking place.

3. Discussion Regarding Reserve Funds. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn.

During our Workshop Session on February 16, our Finance Director Cynthia Hammond shared our current policy that our general fund reserves should not be less than 50% of general fund expenses. The resolution that is being proposed in the Regular Session does not actually establish any specific reserve thresholds or debt limits. It states that the city shall maintain reserves "at levels sufficient to ensure fiscal stability" and exercise "caution" in bond issuance. Those are principles, not guidelines. Our existing policy already requires the city to maintain a 50% general fund reserve. That is a concrete, enforceable standard. This resolution, by contrast, contains no specific numbers at all. A resolution that is more vague than the policy already in place is not an upgrade.

4. Presentation on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Selection and Workshop. Presented by Jacques Garcia and Hannah Adeogun.

Our Comprehensive Plan Update is an important process because it touches every single person who lives, works, or does business in our city.

A Comprehensive Plan is a long-term roadmap that guides the decisions we make as a city over time. When someone proposes a new development, when we decide where to invest in infrastructure, or when we talk about what kinds of housing we need more of or where new businesses should go, the Comprehensive Plan is the document that should inform all of those conversations. It shapes transportation decisions, land use policies, economic development priorities, and how we invest public dollars. In short, it is the blueprint for what College Park will become.

That's why it is so important that this plan reflects the voices of all of our neighbors. I am hopeful the engagement strategy for this update is built around accessibility, equity, and continuous community involvement. To help guide the process, each member of the governing body has been asked to appoint three community members to serve on a Steering Committee. Committee members will attend three virtual meetings over the next eight months, advise staff and the consultant team on community needs and priorities, and serve as ambassadors for the process by encouraging neighbors, friends, and fellow business owners to participate.

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.”

The Consent Agenda has relatively few items on it and they are from staff. This is a positive development.

C. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a cooperative purchasing agreement with TECTA America in an amount not to exceed $4,767,200 for JOC Roofing services at GICC. This award will allow the City to procure roofing services under Omnia Cooperative Contract #04- 29. This item is requested by Yanous Barner Executive Director, Global Gateway Campus. This is a FY 2025-2026 budgeted Capital Improvement funded item. G/L #555-4970-54-7700 for F/Y 2026. This item will serve Ward 2.

The work is described in the memo as an emergency, necessary to prevent further damage to the facility and protect our reputation in the hospitality industry. This is, however, a budgeted capital improvement item and we had discussions about this issue in late 2025.

That said, there are some numbers in this packet that contradict each other. The agreement being approved is not to exceed $4,767,200. The memo also describes the project as two phases at approximately $2.9 million each, which would put the total closer to $5.8 million. The packet is not clear which total is correct.

10. Regular Business

B. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the professional services agreement for Ignite Resource group for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Dr. Jamelle McKenzie.

See Workshop Item #2 above.

C. Consideration of and action on a request to approve $2,500,000 from the Hospitality Fund to include projects funded by the Tourist Product Development (TPD) account. GL Account# 275-4975-52-6300 FY 2026. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn.

D. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Expenditure of Tourism Product Development (TPD) Funds for Tourism-Related Capital Improvements. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn.

There is very little information provided and a lot of money being requested. Council is being asked to approve $2,500,000 from our Hospitality Fund's Tourist Product Development (TPD) account for four projects: repaving the GICC parking lot and roadway ($1.3 million), landscaping and lighting around the GICC campus ($500,000), park equipment and maintenance for Parks & Recreation ($600,000), and a walking trail along Camp Creek apartments ($100,000).

These sound like worthy investments. The GICC is one of our economic engines, and maintaining it matters. Parks and green spaces improve quality of life for residents. A walking trail along Camp Creek could be a nice addition to our community.

My concern is the entire background section of this agenda memo just lists the projects and the supposed costs. There are no vendor quotes, no bids, no cost estimates, no scope of work, and no supporting documentation for any of the four projects.

Committing $2.5 million in public funds deserves more explanation.

E. Consideration of and action on a request to approve the allocation of $1,165,000.00, previously included in the FY 2026 budget transfer, for Phase I of the Godby Road Park Project. This item is being requested by Lance Terry, Interim Director of Recreation and Cultural Arts. This item is budgeted in FY 2026 (G/L Account 100 6122 54 7920) and will serve all Wards.

This item allocates $1,165,000 in funding that was previously approved by Council at our February 16th meeting toward two Ward 3 recreation projects: the Community House Renovation ($365,000) and playground equipment replacement at Zupp Park ($800,000). Both of these projects will pay dividends for the community.

F. Consideration of and action on a request to Consider Proposed Revision to Chapter 17, Subdivision Ordinance. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn.

This item proposes an amendment to our Subdivision Ordinance that would create a new "administrative approval" process for subdivision plats involving publicly owned property, including property owned by BIDA. Under the proposed change, these approvals would no longer require Planning Commission review. Instead, approval authority would rest with the City Engineer, or the City Manager as a backup.

The stated reason is efficiency, asserting that Planning Commission review creates unnecessary delay when the City or BIDA is simply adjusting parcel boundaries or reconfiguring publicly owned land. I understand the argument. But efficiency is not the only value at stake here, and I have serious concerns about what this change would mean in practice.

The Planning Commission exists to provide independent oversight and a public forum for decisions about land in our city. Removing that oversight for publicly owned property moves significant decisions out of public view and into administrative hands with no requirement for community input.

The timing of this proposal is also worth noting. The subdivision approval of Bill Evans Field, one of the last steps before closing on that property, was on the Planning Commission's February 23rd agenda and was pulled before it could be considered. If this ordinance amendment passes, that approval would no longer go before the Planning Commission at all. It would be handled administratively, without the input of our neighbors and without a public process.

G. Consideration of and action on a request to approve an ordinance amending Chapter 3 (Alcoholic Beverages), Article II (Licenses), Sections 3-27 and 3-46 of the City Code to revise distance requirements applicable to the sale of malt beverages and wine by the drink and to update minimum penalty provisions for alcoholic beverage license violation.

The proposed ordinance adds language clarifying that each day a violation continues constitutes a separate offense for which fines may be assessed. On its face, that may sound like a reasonable enforcement mechanism. In practice, however, a single violation, even one that a business is actively working to resolve, could compound into thousands of dollars in fines quickly. For a small business, that kind of financial pressure can be crushing.

Under this ordinance, three violations trigger mandatory revocation. That means a business that is cited on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday for the same ongoing issue they are actively attempting to cure could face mandatory license revocation before they have had a realistic opportunity to fix the problem. That is not enforcement. That is a mechanism for closure of small businesses in our community.

I am especially concerned about what happens when that tool is available in an environment where individuals may have the ability to exert undue influence over code enforcement. A provision like this should come with clear standards for how violations are identified, how and when businesses are notified, and what opportunity they have to cure a violation before fines begin to compound.

H. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Resolution Establishing Guidelines for City Fund Reserves and City Bond Policy. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn.

See Workshop Item #3.

I. Consideration of and action on a request to approve an Ordinance Amending Section 2-22 of the Code of Ordinances to Establish Unanimous Voting Requirements for Certain Financial Actions. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn.

This item would amend our Code of Ordinances to require a unanimous affirmative vote of all sitting council members to issue any bonds or access any city fund reserves.

On its face, this sounds like fiscal responsibility. There are serious practical problems about this proposal, however.

First, this ordinance gives any single council member the ability to unilaterally block the city from accessing its own reserves under any circumstances. College Park's economy is heavily dependent on hospitality and tourism. The ordinance itself acknowledges that our financial structure is vulnerable to global health crises, natural disasters, and broader economic instability. Those are exactly the kinds of emergencies where a city needs to be able to move quickly. Under this ordinance, one council member could prevent that from happening.

Second, there is no emergency exception anywhere in this ordinance. If we experienced a hurricane, another pandemic, or a sudden economic shock, none of those circumstances would allow the city to bypass the unanimity requirement. Every single sitting council member would still have to agree before a dollar of reserves could be touched.

Third, the ordinance requires the vote of "all sitting members" but never defines what that means. What happens if a council member is absent? What if a member is recused from voting due to a conflict of interest? What if a member simply refuses to vote? The ordinance provides no answer to any of those questions. In a financial emergency, that ambiguity could be paralyzing.

Fiscal discipline is a value I share. But this ordinance does not promote fiscal discipline. It creates a structure where one person can hold the entire city hostage. Consider what happened during COVID: College Park had to refinance bonds because of the dramatic drop in hospitality revenue. That process was not without controversy even then. Under this ordinance, a single council member could have blocked that refinancing entirely, leaving the city without the ability to respond to a financial crisis of that magnitude. That is not responsible governance. I think it would be a mistake to adopt this proposal.