3/3/2025 Meeting Preview
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 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.
As of the time of this post, the agenda packets were not available on the city’s website. I have provided them for your review.
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 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
1. Presentation on Destination College Park, a Destination Marketing Organization (DMO) for the City of College Park, by Karen Jeremie.
Ms. Jeremie is the Ward 1 representative to the ATL Airport District, our current Destination Marketing Organization. College Park was a founding member of the ATL Airport District, which now includes Hapeville and Union City. The proposal from the workshop packet reads:
The City of College Park should go beyond sole regional representation with its current Destination Marketing Organization (DMO) to achieve broader economic, cultural, and strategic goals by having a dedicated DMO for the City of College Park.
The City of College Park, like similar Georgia municipalities, should appropriate DMO funds to multiple DMO entities:
-Donate an amount equal to the contributions made by the other participating cities in the regional ATL District DMO (up to $500k). Currently, Hapeville donates approximately $400k and Union City donates $160k. This would better align our giving and expectations with this regional collaboration.
-The remaining DMO funds should be donated to Destination College Park, a local DMO targeting city priorities.
I think the current arrangement with the ATL Airport District is a good one. It allows us to draw upon the strengths of our sister cities in the region. It is my understanding the ATL Airport District is possibly looking to expand to additional cities as well, which will help broaden its reach. A separate Destination College Park DMO may be a challenge due to the financial burden, duplication of efforts, limited return on investment, governance concerns, and unclear strategic advantage. Funding both the ATL Airport District (up to $500K) and a separate local DMO could also strain city finances in the long run. I am also concerned that splitting funds between two DMOs may reduce effectiveness.
College Park already benefits from the ATL Airport District, which provides regional promotion and an established tourism infrastructure. A separate DMO could create inefficiencies and overlapping marketing efforts while requiring additional staff, marketing budgets, and administrative overhead. The success of a local DMO would depend on College Park’s ability to attract tourists independent of the ATL Airport District’s broader marketing. However, major tourism draws like the airport, hotels, the Georgia International Convention Center (GICC) and the Gateway Center Arena are already covered by the ATL Airport District. A new DMO may not generate enough unique interest to justify the cost.
Additionally, running a separate DMO raises concerns about governance, transparency, and oversight. Managing and distributing funds fairly across different marketing initiatives could lead to conflicts over priorities, mismanagement, or even political favoritism. Without a well-defined strategy that differentiates it from the ATL Airport District, a local DMO could fail to significantly boost tourism beyond what is already being done. Instead of creating a new entity, there is an opportunity for College Park to advocate for stronger representation within the ATL Airport District to ensure its priorities are highlighted. We could even work with the ATL Airport District to develop a targeted tourism initiative within its existing framework to maximize impact without the added administrative and financial burden of a new DMO. The ATL Airport District has a staff of eleven people to market the three cities in the district. Seven of the nineteen members of the Board of Directors have College Park ties. The ATL Airport District funds the sales and marketing initiatives of the Georgia International Convention Center and the Gateway Center Arena. We have been well served by this partnership. I do not see the need to start a new organization at this time.
2. Presentation: Tourist Products Development Funding for the Fulton County Botanical Gardens Project. Phase 1 & 2 Botanical Garden Development Funding - $5.4 Million. Explanation of TPD Funding by Jeffery Pifery and Ed Wall. Presented by Councilman Roderick Gay
Councilmember Gay is proposing the use of Tourism Product Development (TPD) funds for the development of a botanical garden at Camp Truitt on Herschel Road. TPD funds can be used for a variety of projects and come from hotel-motel taxes.
From O.C.G.A section 48-13-50.2(6):
(6) “Tourism product development” means the expenditure of funds for the creation or expansion of physical attractions which are available and open to the public and which improve destination appeal to visitors, support visitors’ experience, and are used by visitors. Such expenditures may include capital costs and operating expenses. Tourism product development may include:
(A) Lodging for the public for no longer than 30 consecutive days to the same customer;
(B) Overnight or short-term sites for recreational vehicles, trailers, campers, or tents;
(C) Meeting, convention, exhibit, and public assembly facilities;
(D) Sports stadiums, arenas, and complexes;
(E) Golf courses associated with a resort development that are open to the general public on a contract or fee basis;
(F) Racing facilities, including dragstrips, motorcycle racetracks, and auto or stock car racetracks or speedways;
(G) Amusement centers, amusement parks, theme parks, or amusement piers;
(H) Hunting preserves, trapping preserves, or fishing preserves or lakes;
(I) Visitor information and welcome centers;
(J) Wayfinding signage;
(K) Permanent, nonmigrating carnivals or fairs;
(L) Airplanes, helicopters, buses, vans, or boats for excursions or sightseeing;
(M) Boat rentals, boat party fishing services, rowboat or canoe rentals, horse shows, natural wonder attractions, picnic grounds, river-rafting services, scenic railroads for amusement, aerial tramways, rodeos, water slides, or wave pools;
(N) Museums, planetariums, art galleries, botanical gardens, aquariums, or zoological gardens;
(O) Parks, trails, and other recreational facilities; or
(P) Performing arts facilities.
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 account. Our taxpayers should not be responsible for supporting this initiative. I believe the community would benefit from TPD funds being used for the Price Barbershop History Center project as well. Based upon the calculations in the packet and my discussion with Councilmember Gay, I believe there is sufficient funding for both.
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.
D. Consideration of and action on a request to transfer all funds from Ward 4 Dog Park/Park and Green Space Enhancements to Ward 4 Community Enhancements. All incumbent funds will come from this account. Request on behalf of Councilman Roderick Gay.
E. Consideration of and action for a funding transfer of $250,000.00 for planned renovations and events at the TWRC community house, TWRC bathroom upgrades and concession stand upgrades at Zupp Park. This is a budget transfer from the Ward 3 Community Enhancement Funds to the Recreations budget. All items exceeding the City Manager's purchase approval or needing to be bid will be back before the governing body as deemed appropriate. Item sponsored by Councilwoman Tracie Arnold.
The supporting documentation for both of these agenda items is here.
9. Regular Agenda
C. Consideration of and action on a request regarding amending Licenses and Permitting Ordinances
This may be part of a broader push to reduce the number of liquor stores in our city and secure our legal footing while we do so. The four liquor stores in the city have been receiving provisional licenses since the start of the year, only good for thirty days at a time. We have heard from them (see here, here and here) about the negative impact this is having on their businesses. I believe we should be issuing these businesses licenses for the entirety of the year, in accordance with Section 3-42 of our ordinances. However, all that has been presented to me for signature thus far have been provisional licenses for these establishments. My option has been to sign the provisional licenses or to not sign their licenses at all, which would mean they would have to close their doors.
I understand some of my colleagues may be concerned about how issuing these licenses may conflict with Section 3-24 of our ordinances, which was originally instituted in 1993. It limits the number of alcohol licenses issued in the city to one per every 5,000 residents. However, it also does not prohibit the transfer of a license to new ownership if the business was licensed on May 1, 1977. All four establishments have received licenses each year for at least the past twenty years. I do not have any information that these businesses have not been in continuous operation since May 1, 1977, even though ownership has changed hands since that time.
It is important that even if we have personal objections to businesses we create a climate that provides for stability and certainty for those seeking to set up shop in College Park. I am deeply concerned this situation will send a chilling effect through the business community and impact our ability to recruit businesses to come to our city in the future.
