10/6/2025 Meeting Preview

You’ll see below some of the agenda highlights for our first meeting in October. 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 e-mail 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 e-mail us.

WORKSHOP SESSION

3. Discussion on an HVAC Upgrade at City Hall by Trane U.S. Inc. Staff recommends approval of an HVAC upgrade at City Hall to be performed by Trane U.S. Inc. This project will be executed under the Omnia Partners cooperative purchasing contract, which covers HVAC products, installation, labor-based solutions, and related services. This item is not budgeted. This agenda item is being requested by Jerrel Jones, Procurement Manager.

While this is not a budgeted item, it is a very necessary one. The HVAC system in City Hall has been in need of upgrades for several years. It appears we will have to go into our reserves to fund this. Issues like these arise and we have to address them. However, I am concerned that based upon some of the proposed spending later in this agenda (including taking $5 million out of our reserves for the proposed botanical garden) and money we have expended earlier this fiscal year that was not budgeted, that we are going well beyond our needs and jeopardizing our fiscal health in the event of an economic downturn.

4. Carahsoft Polymorphic (sic) A.I. Innovations workshop demonstration. Polymorphic is the A.I. company that is chosen to deploy A.I. chatbot and Audio city wide to server staff, residents, and Executives. This is not a budgeted item but will be paid from R&M equipment 100-1535-52-5730 ($53,928.00)

Polimorphic seeks to improve our customer service outcomes with the use of artificial intelligence. This is a move in the right direction for the city. This should help to free up our front-line staffers so they can address more complex tasks. I look forward to the presentation.

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 utilized 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) by clicking here.

Q. Consideration of and action on a request to a resolution to designate Parcel ID 13070B A006 and Parcel ID 13070B A007 for the Development of a City Incubator & Accelerator Center. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Arnold.

These parcels are 1860 Godby Rd. and 1864 Godby Rd. I like the idea of developing a incubator and accelerator center. I believe this merits a broader discussion than it being placed on a consent agenda, though. This type of a proposal merits a discussion. Perhaps that takes place during a workshop session. We should have an idea of the scope of the project and cost estimates before we make the commitment to designate the land for this purpose.

R. Consideration of and action on a request for approval to grant a Professional Services Agreement for Community Engagement Services to Lexi Walker, in the amount of $24,700.00 annually to be paid in monthly installments. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Arnold.

U. Consideration of and action on a request for approval of the Ward I Professional Community & Partner Relations Services Agreement with Mario Malcolm in a monthly fee of $3,000. This is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem McKenzie. This is a budgeted item. G/L Account# 100-1100-52-7281 - Ward 1 Community Enhancement-Non-Capital.

We have been using professional services contracts rather liberally. At this point, in addition to our Legislative Aides (each of whom is paid $70,000 annually), my colleagues have engaged professional services contracts for project managers, community engagement, outreach specialists and more. When I first came into office in 2020, the five members of the governing body had one administrative assistant that we all utilized. Having one person work with five different people wasn’t the best arrangement. However, as part-time elected officials, we also don’t need three to five people supporting us, either. I hope during our next budget season we will reexamine the community enhancement line items and our process in approving these expenditures.

S. Consideration of and action on a request to adopt a resolution to designate Parcel ID 13070A B001 as a City (public) dog park and associated green space. This item is sponsored by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold.

This parcel is 2064 Godby Rd. I support creating more opportunties for green space. I do not know if this is the highest and best use of this particular piece of land, however. It does not align with the future land use in our comprehensive plan. Again, this is the type of issue we should be discussing in a workshop, not pushing through on a consent agenda.

V. Consideration of and action to appropriate $300,000.00 for the Phillips Park parking lot expansion to cover the following unexpected contingencies; topcoat paving, parking lot utility lighting, parking lot striping, parking lot commercial gate and posts, and relocation of recycle bins. FUND: Parks GL Account #6122-54-7851. This item is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

As you may recall from my September 15th meeting preview, I had major reservations about the funding of this project. When I saw this item on the draft agenda, I asked the city manager about the additional expenditures. She told me the overage was actually $95,000 instead of $300,000, because an extra half inch of asphalt was necessary. I brought this issue up prior to my conversation with her, but I never received a response to my inquiry.

According to the agenda transmittal, this new request is described as covering “unexpected contingencies” such as topcoat paving, parking lot lighting, striping, a commercial gate and posts, and the relocation of recycling bins. But all of those aren’t contingencies; some of them are add-ons. A gate and a granite wall, for example, were never part of the original $625,000 scope.

Additionally, the actual dollar amounts in the backup documentation don’t total $300,000. Based on what’s provided, the invoices come to $240,142.19, roughly $60,000 short of what’s being requested. There’s no explanation for where the remaining money would go or how it would be used.

The city can’t keep adding layers of spending to projects without clear documentation, full disclosure, and a public explanation of why the price keeps climbing. This isn’t about slowing things down. It’s about doing things right.

Furthermore, the proceeds to fund this project are supposed to come from the sale of Bill Evans Field. The council agreed last May to use the $1.5 million from the sale of Bill Evans Field to construct replacement baseball fields near Phillips Park. We’re already spending over $800,000 to relocate a wind shear tower for the FAA. The parking lot project will exceed $900,000.

There is no money for the construction of new baseball fields. The money has been spent. We are losing out altogether on recreational space and we are getting a lot of asphalt.

When we approve projects this way through the consent agenda, where items are bundled together and rarely discussed, we lose the transparency our residents deserve. No one asks questions because no one wants their own items pulled off. But that silence comes at a cost.

W. Consideration of and action to appropriate an additional $105,000.00 for the 9th Annual Ward 4 Citywide Festival. Ward 4 - Community Enhancement (Non-Capital) 100-1100-52-7284. This item is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

The agenda transmittal form states, “[t]his appropriation is a budgeted item under the Ward 4 Citywide Community Enhancements Fund for FY 2025-2026.”

There is no line item in the Ward 4 community enhancement budget for this festival.

Earlier this year, the Council approved $100,000 for the Ward 4 Festival. It appears expenses have ballooned far beyond the budget. Furthermore, there is only one invoice for $12,000 in the packet. It is not clear how the remaining $87,000 will be used. The fact this item made it to our consent agenda with this little detail is indicative of a major problem in our process. We can and should do better.

X. Consideration of and action on a request for full sponsorship approval by the Mayor and Council to host "Gateway to Talent A Musical Production" (GTT) in collaboration with the Ludacris Foundation (TLF). The target date is April of 2026. Mayor Pro Tem McKenzie has requested full sponsorship to support this event by donating $50,000 to ensure a successful event. This is a budgeted item. GL Account # 100-1100-52-7281 Ward 1 Community Enhancement Non Capital. This event will benefit the upcoming talent and the entire community. This item is sponsored by Mayor Pro Tem Jamelle McKenzie.

This event was originally planned for this summer, but was postponed because there were not enough people signed up to make the event worthwhile. The agenda transmittal indicates we will be spending taxpayer dollars on an event that does not appear to be designed to make money for the city. I don’t think our first priority as a city should be putting on talent shows. There are others who are better suited to plan events. Instead of a one-day showcase, we could use $50,000 to add another 911 operator, or support continuing education for our employees. However, because this is on the consent agenda, we probably won’t have the opportunity to have a discussion about alternative uses of these funds.

9. OTHER BUSINESS

C. Consideration of and action to appropriate $5,000,000.00 from the 2025 General Fund Balance for the Botanical Gardens Project (Additional Phase). FUND: Unreserved Undesignated GL Account #100-13-4200 FY2026. This item is sponsored by Councilman Roderick Gay.

When this project was presented in March, Phases 1 and 2 included “[c]learing overgrown vegetation to improve safety and allow natural sunlight to enhance the landscape. Building handicap-accessible trails ensures inclusivity for all visitors. Upgrading roads with a new roundabout and commercial entry to improve traffic flow and accessibility. Installing decorative lighting to create a welcoming atmosphere. Restoring vital infrastructure, such as the historic spring area, expanding retention area into waterscapes and waterfalls.” Those phases were estimated to cost $5.5 million.

At the time, I wrote in my preview of that meeting, “I have shared my thoughts with Councilmember Gay about the project, including that the funds to build and operate the facility need to be available in the TPD [Tourism Product Development] account. Our taxpayers should not be responsible for supporting this initiative.”

I still believe our taxpayers should not be responsible for supporting this initiative. However, this agenda item proposes using $5 million of general fund reserves — your taxpayer dollars — for this project, including $1 million for additional land acquisition, establishment of a conservation fund, and repurposing 4-H cabins for a gift shop, a welcome house, an administrative office and library.

We don’t need all of that right now.

If this agenda item is approved, altogether we’d be investing more than $10 million of public money into an initiative that has yet to produce a clear master plan, long-term operations model, or evidence of sustainable revenue to offset the ongoing costs of maintenance and staffing.

Before we commit another dollar, we need a comprehensive feasibility study. It must examine:

• Whether the project can realistically attract enough tourism and program activity to justify this level of investment;

• The full life-cycle cost of the gardens, including operations, staffing, and maintenance;

• How the project fits into the city’s overall capital priorities and debt capacity; and

• Potential alternatives or partnerships that could reduce the city’s financial exposure.

The idea of a botanical garden and preserved green space is a good one. But sound stewardship requires data, not just optimism. We owe residents transparency, a defined plan, and a realistic understanding of what success looks like before we spend another $5 million.

When we met with officials at the Atlanta Botanical Garden about how their garden came into being, they spoke of a fifty year journey to where they are now. It was done slowly, in stages. The whole garden was not built at one time. Today, the Atlanta Botanical Garden brings in over $35 million in revenue and has almost $32 million in expenses each year. But that’s not where they started. We could spend the money that has already been allocated through Tourism Product Development funds for a smaller attraction that will put us on solid footing.

I am deeply concerned about using fund balance to finance this endeavor. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the economy. Instead of drawing down our reserves for this purpose, it may make more sense to try to pay down some of our debt. Having led this city though the pandemic, I know we had to make difficult choices in 2020 and 2021 because of the decision to use fund balance in years prior. I don’t want to see us in the same situation if we head into a recession. We should learn from our past missteps and avoid them moving forward.

D. Consideration of and action on a request to approve a cooperative purchasing agreement with TK Elevator for elevator maintenance and related services in the amount of $787,000.00. TK Elevator will provide elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services for designated City of College Park facilities. This agenda item is being requested by Ron Wilkerson. This is a budgeted item. Fund: G/L Account #557-4990-52-5740

The only documents in the packet are from Sourcewell. I do not see a contract or a quote specific to College Park.

H. Consideration of and action on a request to approve an ordinance to establish the College Park Tenants Commission. This item is sponsored by Councilman Carn.

The Tenants Commission would be an advisory body. That means it wouldn’t have the authority to enforce laws, penalize landlords, or create new tenant protections. Instead, it would exist to study issues, make recommendations, and serve as a formal channel for renters to share concerns with city leaders.

Each member of the governing body would appoint one voting member, for a total of five. Every member must be a current renter in College Park. The group could also have up to two non-voting advisors. Members would meet at least quarterly and provide an annual report to the City Council outlining their findings and recommendations.

According to the ordinance, the Commission’s work would include:

• Advising on housing affordability, habitability standards, and tenant-landlord relations;

• Recommending policies or programs to improve tenant protections and prevent displacement;

• Helping the city educate residents about Georgia landlord-tenant law and local housing codes; and

• Coordinating with other city departments where housing overlaps with issues like public safety or economic development.

The intent here is positive: to make sure the voices of renters are represented in policy discussions. But as written, the Commission would not have funding, staff of its own, or any enforcement role. Its impact would depend entirely on whether its recommendations are taken seriously and acted upon by the Council and city administration.

With nearly four out of five households renting, we need to ensure this effort produces more than reports and meetings. Before we create another board, we should ask whether the city is prepared to support it with the data, staff access, and policy follow-through needed to make real change for renters.

Otherwise, we risk setting up a well-intentioned structure that can’t deliver what residents expect.

G. Consideration of and action on a request to approve Amending an Ordinance on Regulations for Hotels, Motels, Extended-Stay Hotels, and Multi-Family Rental Properties. This item is sponsored by Councilman Carn.

Many other jurisdictions have first and second readings of ordinances so issues can be discussed and addressed before laws are adopted. I think we should take the same approach and this ordinance is a perfect example of why first and second readings are good policy. Overall, I do not believe this ordinance is not ready for adoption tonight. It needs a lot of work.

This ordinance codifies a definition of a high-risk property. While I was assured by the city attorney and Councilmember Carn in our last meeting that there was a definition of a high-risk property in the code when we were discussing another proposed ordinance, it turns out there was not. Council approved an ordinance at our last meeting with the term “high-risk property” and we had no definition of it in our code. I did not sign the ordinance passed at the last meeting for that reason.

I am concerned about this new ordinance for a number of reasons. I know of property owners who have received five citations in a single visit from code enforcement, and I would not necessarily consider the properties high-risk. However, receiving five code violations in a year could subject owners to this designation. This has the real potential for abuse, especially considering some of the recent allegations about the weaponization of code enforcement. Additionally, it would be up to staff members, specifically the chief building official, the fire chief, the police chief, any code enforcement officer, or any person/entity specially appointed and designated by those officials to determine how much insurance these high-risk properties should carry and which security company could service the property. That level of subjectivity and government involvement on private property is concerning.

This ordinance also places potential prohibitions on the transfer of real property. I don’t think the the city should be in the position of telling people to whom they can and cannot sell their property. It also places restrictions on the number of people renters can have in their units. It says that “congregation within any single rental unit of a number of persons greater than two (2) times the number of persons for whom sleeping accommodations are provided within the Rental Unit is prohibited.”

If a grandmother in a one-bedroom unit wants to have her family over for Sunday dinner, she may violate this ordinance. That’s not good policy. That’s government overreach.

I know we have real problems with some multi-family properties and extended-stay hotels in College Park. Residents deserve safe, well-maintained places to live and the city has a duty to hold bad actors accountable.

But this ordinance misses the mark. Even more concerning, it could open the city up to legal liability. We need solutions that are targeted, lawful, and effective, not sweeping rules that create more risk than results.

K. Consideration of and action on a request to adopt a Power Outage Reimbursement Policy for residential electric customers. This item is sponsored by Councilman Joe Carn.

From staff: “The proposed policy provides a one-day electric usage credit to residential customers who experience a verified power outage lasting more than one hour. The credit is calculated as a proportion of the customer’s average monthly bill. This adjustment reflects a service-based billing credit and is consistent with the City’s responsibility as a municipal utility provider.”

This proposed policy may create more problems than it solves.

For starters, residents already aren’t charged for electricity they don’t use. If the power is out, the meter isn’t running. This credit would effectively pay people potentially multiple times over for the same downtime while taking money out of the city’s electric fund, which pays for maintenance, upgrades, and storm recovery.

There’s also no financial analysis showing how this would impact the city’s budget. Every credit issued is lost revenue that has to be made up somewhere — either through rate increases or by cutting back on the very improvements that prevent outages in the first place.

It would require residents to apply for the credit, and staff would have to verify each claim. That’s a lot of administrative time and effort for something that hasn’t been fully thought through. There’s been no financial study to show how much this would cost or how it would affect the electric fund. This is the same fund that pays for maintenance, storm recovery, and upgrades that actually keep the lights on.

If a hurricane or major storm hits and the entire city loses power for hours or days, that’s not the city’s fault. Under this policy, however, we could still be on the hook for thousands of dollars in credits. This also does not distinguish from an outage caused by nature or an outage from something like a landlord not paying a bill. That’s not responsible or sustainable.

This is not about avoiding accountability. It’s about recognizing that weather, equipment failures, and accidents are part of what every power system faces. The right solution is to prevent outages in the first place through smart investment, stronger infrastructure, and better maintenance. We’re already working daily toward those goals.