5/18/2026 Meeting Preview

You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our second meeting in May. 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, 6:00 p.m.

1. Presentation on Airport West Community Improvement District expansion to the City of College Park.

The ATL Airport Community Improvement Districts will present a request for College Park to approve a boundary expansion for the Airport South CID. CIDs are property owner-funded entities that support infrastructure, public safety, and mobility improvements. Adding non-consenting parcels to the CID requires a formal resolution from each participating city.

No City funding is involved. The CID is funded entirely through self-imposed commercial property assessments. A formal resolution would be required before any action is official, which is being considered in Regular Session (Item 10A).

2. Presentation of "The Aviator" and "NapYork" concept for 4130 SkyTrain Way.

The Aviator is envisioned as a multi-use commercial terminal one SkyTrain stop from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The phased concept includes ground-floor parking, a first-floor food, beverage, and retail hall, second-floor office and coworking space, and a rooftop sky bar and restaurant.

NapYork is a New York-based sleep-pod chain proposing a 5,000 sq. ft. location within the building, targeting airline crew and travelers needing short-term rest. The company currently serves crews from multiple airlines including Delta, and reports more than 300,000 bookings and in excess of $6,000,000 in revenue to date.

Both concepts are presented for discussion. No action is requested at this time.

3. Discussion on the health and benefits renewal as presented by SCR Consulting LLC for plan year July 1, 2026-June 30, 2027.

The City's benefits broker, SCR Consulting LLC, will present the annual health insurance renewal for plan year July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. Every option on the table represents a significant increase over current premiums, ranging from 32% to nearly 50% depending on the carrier.

While Kaiser Permanente comes in as the least expensive option, the recommendation is to renew with Anthem. Kaiser would require employees to change providers and interrupt established care relationships. I agree the disruption for our employees is not worth the cost difference.

The formal vote is on the consent agenda (Item 9E).

Regular Session, 7:30 p.m.

8. Public Hearings

A. 2026-2027 Recommended Budget Presentation and Public Hearing

This is the first of two public hearings on the recommended budget for fiscal year 2026-2027. Your voice matters. Once this budget is adopted, it governs how the City spends your tax dollars for the entire year.

The recommended budget totals $227.4 million city-wide, with a General Fund budget of $58.3 million. Key priorities in the recommended budget include keeping the millage rate flat, a 4% cost of living adjustment for City employees, a compensation study for all full-time employees, a senior (65+) homestead exemption, and a reduction in electric rates. The Community Enhancement budget is proposed to be reduced from $4.5 million to $2 million, with an additional $100,000 per governing body member designated for city-wide events.

If you have thoughts on how our City is spending your money, this is the time to speak up.

10. Regular Business

C. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Reasonable Accommodation request for 2367 Ridgeway Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

D. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Reasonable Accommodation request for 2082 Lyle Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

E. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Reasonable Accommodation request for 2083 Rugby Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

F. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a Reasonable Accommodation request for 2109 Rugby Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

It is my understanding all four of these items will be removed. The company making these requests, Northeast Asset Development, LLC, is not the owner of the properties. Staff is investigating how and why these items were placed on the agenda.

G. Consideration of and action to purchase a 2026 JHB Group (Sourcewell Contract# 103235) Fire Safety Simulator Trailer for the Office of the Fire Marshal-Fire Prevention/Community Risk Reduction Division via MES (MES Service Company) as the dealer.

The unit would replace the City's 2005 fire safety house, which is 21 years old and no longer meets ADA accessibility standards. The cost of $278,982.12 is proposed to be funded through the Mayoral Community Enhancement budget. I have reached out to the city attorney to confirm this purchase is permissible through Sourcewell. I will update you when I receive more information.

UPDATE (5/18/2026, 10:30 am): The city attorney’s office confirmed the Sourcewell contract can be used for this purchase.

It is important to me that Community Enhancement dollars produce something residents can see, touch, and benefit from directly. A modern fire safety simulator does exactly that. It is a hands-on, interactive tool that teaches fire escape planning, smoke alarm safety, stop-drop-and-roll techniques, and kitchen fire prevention to residents of all ages. It is fully ADA accessible and can travel to schools, neighborhood events, and community gatherings across College Park. Every child who walks through it, every family that participates, is better prepared. That is a direct, visible return on public dollars and that matters to me.

The idea for this initiative came from leadership within the fire department, while the funding is coming from you: the residents whose tax dollars make Community Enhancement funds possible.

Earlier this year, I proposed a participatory budgeting process with Mayoral Community Enhancement funds that would have given residents a direct say in how some of these funds were used. Unfortunately, that process has not moved forward. Now, the timeline for standing up a participatory budgeting framework has been delayed to the point where completing it within this fiscal year is no longer realistic. I am optimistic we can revisit the concept at a later date.

H. Consideration of and action on a request to approve an Ordinance to amend Chapter 5, Article XII (Multi Family Housing, Lodging and Commercial Business) (Tree Debris & Removal of Stumps).

Residents have raised legitimate concerns about deteriorating commercial properties, and this ordinance gives the City tools to address them. Property owners would have 15 days to clear debris after cutting, storm damage, or City notice. Violations start at $250 per condition per day, and the City can lien the property if an owner refuses to comply.

I do have some concerns, however. First, the ordinance gives inspectors broad discretion through a catch-all provision that could lead to inconsistent enforcement. The storm debris exemption only kicks in during an "officially recognized cleanup period," but the ordinance doesn't define how that designation is made or how owners are notified, which could leave people on the clock unfairly. The penalty structure is also aggressive, with each stump or debris pile counting as a separate daily violation. A property with three stumps and a debris pile could face four separate daily violations simultaneously. That adds up quickly and could fall hardest on smaller property owners who are slow to respond but not acting in bad faith. Finally, there is no appeals process specified for owners who want to contest a citation or the City's cost assessment. I'd like to see those gaps addressed.

J. Consideration of and action on a request to approve an Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code to Clarify Execution of Official Documents, Authority of the Mayor Pro Tem, and Parliamentary Procedures for Mayor and Council Meetings. Co-sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Carn and Councilwoman Jamelle McKenzie.

I recorded a video about the original ordinance over the weekend.

At 7:29 pm on Sunday, May 17, I received a revised version of the ordinance from the City Attorney’s office. It was sent directly to me, with the City Manager copied. The Council members who co-sponsored this ordinance and the rest of the governing body were not included. I find that curious. If changes were made in response to concerns I voiced publicly over the weekend, it raises a question about who is directing the work and on whose behalf.

UPDATE (5/18/2026, 10:30 am): I asked the City Attorney why I was the sole recipient, and he informed me it was because they “sent separate emails to avoid encouraging group dialogue on an agenda item outside of a public meeting.” I understand that rationale. It has not always been the practice in the past.

Three things were changed in the revised version. The number of warnings required before a Council member can move to remove the Mayor as presiding officer was raised from two to three. The mechanism for silencing a Council member was changed from a unilateral City Attorney directive to a motion requiring a unanimous vote. And the explicit penalty provisions, including the language that would have defined any failure to sign outside the closed list as a violation of the City Code and exposed the Mayor to censure, mandamus, and ethics proceedings, were removed entirely.

That said, several core problems remain. There is no exception for the Mayor not signing a document that was never presented for signature within three days. Having served in this capacity for over six years, I can say from experience that documents are not always ready for signature within three business days of a vote, through no one’s fault. Sometimes things just take more time. Remarkably, the ordinance contains no exception for this. There is no provision that accounts for a document simply not being ready for signature within three days. It is an impossibility to sign something you do not have.

The language defining the Mayor's signature as a "ministerial and administrative act with no discretion" remains. The ordinance lists the only circumstances where the Mayor is permitted to not sign: incapacity, illness, death, being out of state, military duty, legal disqualification, or a vacant office. There is no exception for a legal question. There is no exception for a drafting error. There is no exception for a discrepancy in the numbers.

This is not a theoretical concern. Last year, an ordinance related to retail package liquor store licenses came before Council. After the vote, the City Attorney's office and City Clerk exchanged emails well beyond three business days regarding the ordinance. There was also a substantive dispute about what had actually been voted on. The drafted language would have prevented license holders from transferring ownership without losing their grandfathered status, which the City Clerk herself confirmed was not the intent of Council. I did not sign that ordinance because the language did not reflect what Council had voted for. The situation was never fully resolved, and I suggested we place the matter back on the agenda to get confirmation of Council’s intent. That did not occur. Under this proposed ordinance, that act of careful review would still be constrained by a rigid three-day deadline with no room for the kind of back-and-forth that the process itself often requires.

College Park does not currently require ordinances to go through a first and second reading before adoption. Many cities do, and for good reason. The governing body is in the business of making the laws of the city. When ordinance language gets changed on the floor during a meeting, or when a motion is imprecise enough to be subject to interpretation after the fact, the result may be a document that may not reflect the actual vote. We see that occurring regularly during our meetings. That is exactly what happened with the package store ordinance.

A first and second reading requirement would give the public time to weigh in and give Council time to review precise language before a final vote. That kind of deliberate process protects everyone. It is also simply good governance. If the Mayor is going to be held to a three-day signing deadline, the least we can do is ensure the document the Mayor receives accurately reflects what was approved.

The ordinance also designates the City Attorney as the official parliamentarian for all meetings and gives that appointed official broad authority to act independently, without being asked. The City Attorney can raise points of order, intervene in debate, and admonish the Mayor and Council members whenever he or she determines debate has strayed from the subject or grown "redundant or excessive." That is a sweeping and subjective standard.

After three admonishments from the City Attorney in the same meeting (increased from the two in the original proposed ordinance), any Council member can make a motion to remove the Mayor as presiding officer for the remainder of that meeting, which would require a unanimous vote of Council members present and voting.

The elected presiding officer of the meeting can be removed from the chair through action initiated by an appointed attorney.

The same three-warning threshold applies before a Council member can be silenced for the rest of the meeting. If a motion is made to silence a Council member, that Council member cannot vote on the matter. The remaining Council members would make the decision without the affected member's participation.

An ordinance that defines a closed list of seven permissible reasons not to sign a document, places an appointed official in a position to unilaterally intervene in an elected body's proceedings, and creates a mechanism to remove the elected Mayor from the chair of her own meeting is not a minor procedural update.

I encourage you to stay engaged.