City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Good evening everyone and welcome to the city of Roswell mayor and council meeting for Monday, March 9th, 2026. I am Mayor Mary Robisho and I would like to introduce my colleagues and council members present. Mayor Prom and Council Member Sarah Bon, Council Member Erin Brumley, Council Member Christine Hall, Council Member Jennifer Phillippy, Council Member Alan Cells, and Council Member Chris Zach. I will now turn it over to Chief Administrative Officer and City Administrator Randy Knight to explain how the meeting is run. Mr. Nighton.

Thank you, Mayor Robisho, and good evening to everyone. Uh, in accordance with section chapter 3.70 of the city code, the city council shall hold regular public meetings. And the purpose of these city council meetings are for the public to participate and speak on agenda items which do constitute formal decisions by the elected body. These items are listed on the published agenda which can be accessed via the city website prior to the meeting. Public comments and questions are essential for mayor and council to consider as they contemplate each decision. If you wish to speak on an agenda item, we do ask that you fill out a comment card. We have staff members um in the back that will um take those comment cards or provide those to you. So, if you do wish to speak on an agenda item this evening, we do ask that you would raise your hand and receive a comment card. That comment card will be provided to our city clerk, uh, Nancy Long, and will be received in the order that they are received based on that specific agenda item. Five minutes will be provided to each speaker on the respective agenda item. And um, we ask that you if you must have an independent conversation that you do exit the rear doors to the festival area. Um and also that you would silence any electronic devices at this time. We encourage everyone of course to visit our city website and Roswell 365 for a calendar of events and we thank you again for being here this evening. Mayor Robo.

Thank you Mr. Nighton. I would like to now invite senior pastor Lee Jenkins from Eagle's Nest Church to come forward and give the invocation. Thank you, mayor. May we all stand, please? Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we pause at the beginning of this meeting to acknowledge that every good gift ultimately comes from you. So we thank you for blessing this incredible city, the city of Roswell, for blessing its families, its businesses, its neighborhoods, and the many people who work each day to make this a community that we can live, work, and flourish in. So tonight we give thanks and we thank you for the leadership of this city, the mayor, the members of the city council, and all the others who are in this room who serve this great community. We pray that you will grant them wisdom in their decisions, integrity in their actions, and humility in their service. We also ask that you will unite this city and this leadership and may we be a bastion of hope for others to emulate. We lift up our nation tonight. There's so much uncertainty going on in the world today and we ask for wisdom even for our national leaders. So lastly, may your wisdom guide us today. May your wisdom um give us peace today as we make decisions and may your grace sustain us. So again, we ask your blessings on these people and this city.

In your precious holy name we pray. Amen. Amen.

Thank you, Pastor Jenkins. If everyone would stay standing, I would now like to invite Cub Scout Troop 87 and Cup Scout Pack 199 to lead the pledge and present the colors of the United States. Attention uniform. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Dismissed. Audience be seated. So, thank you to Cub Scout Troop 87 and Cub Scout Pack 199. Next is the recognition of the 2025 Roswell Fire Department C-shift award recipients, service award recipients. Chief Tro, please come forward to present the awards. Mayor, Council, again, another great night for the Roswell Fire Department as we uh present the C-shift award recipients for 2025. And it's worth repeating for those that are unaware, there's a we work 48 hours on, 96 hours off, and there are three shifts, A, B, and C. So, we recognized uh the previous shift. Today is C shift. And these awards are selected by the peers. So I'll be bringing each one of them up here. We could uh recognize them and then afterwards we'd love it if you join us for a picture. So first member of Cshift that we'd like to recognize is the firefighter of the year and that would be Kyle Phillips. Some of what uh Kyle Phillips peers had to say was firefighter Phillips consistently demonstrate strong performance during both fire and EMS emergency medical services incidents while contributing to a positive and dependable crew environment. He is known for providing outstanding customer service, including assisting early elderly residents with safety needs and helping citizens beyond the initial response. Mayor and council, just like the previous uh shift and including today, one of the things that you're

going to continue to hear is the word care. And it's super important to us because we provide a service in the city of Roswell as a fire department, uh, emergency medical services or fire services, but care is a component that's expected. And the members that you're going to hear about tonight, you'll hear that word often. Next, we want to recognize fire apparatus operator of the year, Nick Leslie. FAO Lesie delivers dependable operations, strong patient care, and excellent support to his crews. He actively participates in committee work and consistently provides thoughtful, respectful service to the citizens during both emergency and non-emergency calls. Next, we have the EMS provider of the year, the emergency medical services provider of the year, and that is John Monahu. Captain Monu provides steady leadership and strong clinical decision-making during high-risisk incidents, including a critical officer involved response. this year. He also contributes to peer support and critical incident stress management efforts helping strengthen resilience and readiness across the department. Something important to note here with uh Captain Monahu is he actually developed a program for the fire department where all members of the fire department have an application on their phone that they can access if they need any type of peer support or mental health assistance. and he spearheaded that with a group and was able to provide that for the entire department where we have it in our hands at any time. Next we have Yes.

Next we have the fire chiefs award Captain Hagen Bailey. Captain Hagen Bailey is a member of the historic 21. So, he was one of the first 21 uh full-timers that we hired. During the department's transition, Captain Bailey stepped into into leadership at a pivotal moment in the department's development. Captain Bailey faced the pressure of joining the organization during a period of significant transformation. He quickly earned his team's trust and establish a strong, productive environment. Captain Bailey consistently stepped forward to support critical projects and helped the department transition to full-time operations. Captain Bailey has also spearheaded our self-contained breathing apparatus program, which is critical. It's the bottles that we carry on our back when we're in a fire. and uh through his work, not only are we able to stay compliant, he's actually saved us thousands of dollars a year uh through his service. So, thank you, Captain Bailey. Last and most definitely not the least, this was not an award internal for the department. We actually want to recognize tonight chief officer of the year for 2025. that was recognized as that state capital. So this was uh state level recognition of uh this chief officer battalion chief David Buck Rogers. Battalion Chief David Buck Rogers exemplifies the very best of the fire service through his steadfast leadership, professionalism, and

dedication to others. With more than 30 years of service in both the Cab County Fire Rescue and the City of Roswell Fire Department, Chief Rogers has devoted his career to advancing the mission of the fire service, shaping organizations, and inspiring those who follow in his path. As one of Roswell's first full-time battalion chiefs, Chief Rogers played a central role in one of the department's most critical transition, moving from part-time model to a full-time staffing model. Perhaps one of Chief Roger's greatest contributions has been his mentorship. Having served as a battalion chief longer than many in the profession have served at all, he has become a trusted source of wisdom, guidance, and encouragement. again. Chief Rogers, state fire chief officer of the year. Mayor and counselor, if you would join us for a picture. What are you doing? 25th century.

Exactly. Okay, come on. Oh yeah. They're all leaving us.

So, next is the consent agenda. City clerk Nancy Long, are there any speakers on the consent agenda? Mayor, there are no speakers for the consent.

Does council have any comments regarding the consent agenda? Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Council member mayor prom. Do I have a second? Philippi. Council member Philippy. All those in favor, please raise your hand. The item passes unanimously. Next is the regular agenda. City clerk Nancy Long, please read the first item on the regular agenda. Yes. This is approval to add Junth to the city of Roswell 2026 holiday calendar presented by Trisha Redern, director of human resources,

Trisha. Thank you.

I'm not Trisha, but while she's pulling that, uh, I'll introduce the the item. So the item being presented to you tonight is consideration of formally recognizing Junth as a city holiday. As you know, there have been several discussions about this here in Roswell for the past couple years. Most recently in December, uh when we approved the mayor and council meeting, uh the meeting schedule for 2026. Um as you know, Junth has been recognized nationally since 2021 as a federal holiday and many jurisdictions have adopted it. um such as the state of Georgia and also Fulton County. So with that, I'll turn it over to Trisha for a little more background uh on the item.

Thank you. Good evening. So just to give you a little bit of history on Junth and why we're bringing this item forward today. Got it. Um, so the proposal is to add Junth to the city's holiday calendar to align with federal and state calendars and formalize city recognition of Junth history on the day. It commemorates the emancipation of enslaved African-Americans in the United States, marking June 19th, 1865, when it was enforced in Texas as the final end to slavery. It is recognized as a federal holiday and has been since 2021. It is also recognized as a state holiday and we've seen many municipalities not just in Georgia but throughout the country recognize and adopt this holiday as well. Here's a look at our current city holiday structure. So we have the 12 observed recognized holidays plus each employee gets one personal day to use. Um a little bit of background just to elaborate on Mr. Panino's previous discussion junth was recommended back in 2023. This is when spring holiday and Christmas Eve were added. At that time, there was a discussion to bring it up at future meetings. It was also brought up more recently at the end of 2025 to revisit as well. Some local comparisons just on numbers of holidays and whether or not Junth is recognized. So we have we looked at Fulton County cities. We looked at the greater area state of Georgia, federal Fulton County. And of course we looked at some of our closest cities as well. A comparison by population. So these are the top 15 cities in the state of Georgia and which of those cities recognized Junth today. Paid holiday status for eligible

employees. Um, if this is recognized and adopted, it would fall in line with every other holiday we currently recognize, which would mean city office closures on June 19th, but public safety and other necessary employees would still come in to work. The budget impact would be about $75,000. While the total cost of holiday pay is about $195,000, this would be the additional pay above and beyond for those employees who would still have to work and would receive the additional eight hours of pay. We're requesting at this time implementation beginning in calendar year 2026 or of course as directed by this body. Additionally, we wanted to just talk a little bit about the alignment with our top place to work organizational framework. So by valuing our people, we feel that observance of Junth would align with that top place to work strategy. It does enhance employee morale and engagement and then of course demonstrates our commitment to recognizing American history and aligning with federal and state observances. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.

Council member Hall. Thank you and thank you for the conversations we had during the week about this. I just wanted to bring a little bit of history on uh how we got here. So, in December of 20 December 11th of 23, uh if you bring that holiday schedule back up to what the uh cities the the the one before that, please with the uh number of holidays each of our sister cities has. So in dece on December 11th at that meeting uh we did bring the city of Roswell up to um have an equal amount of holidays as the state as Georgia state and that was in 23. I believe uh Governor Kemp did uh recognize it in 21 making 22 maybe the first year that it was observed. I'm not sure if it was observed in 21 at the state level or observed in 22. So this was a little bit new. Um it was a newer holiday. So um what Roswell did on December 11th, we basically added two holidays and we had a discussion around June 19th and the discussion at that time was to leave the floating holiday. Uh so we bring the employees up to the level of the state holidays at 13 and let the employees have the flexibility and and it's certainly um if if we want to if the employees want to have it recognized as an observed holiday um that would be I I would support that. But I can only support that is if we remove the floating holiday because if

we don't do that, we're at 14, which is although it's nice from a um employee side to have all 14 observed holidays, it it doesn't fit in the fiscally responsible side when we are looking at at running a city. And It does the cost of adding this is the cost of the wages. So correctly probably 195 to 200,000 plus the $75,000. So if we added it in 2026 that's an additional cost of doing business of the city of close to $300,000. uh during our committee uh council member Zach uh suggested that we do go to um to just take this out and go ahead and make it an observed holiday and I believe it was in 2027. So I would be in support of doing that but I am not in support of making uh 14 observed holidays paid holidays at a at a cost doing business of about $300,000 to the city.

Yeah. just I believe the additional cost above and beyond what's already budgeted the the net budget impact $75,000 that is the net budget impact but the cost of doing business impact is 300 because that's the amount of salaries for one day y just to be clear thank you any other council member council member Bon

could you go back to the list of holidays so just wanting to point out to you that this was not a topic of conversation when I brought up Junth and December 2023 when two religious holidays were added, spring holiday, flying air quotes, it's Good Friday and Christmas Eve. So there was no question about financial impact when we were recognizing two very specific religious holidays. But however, when we're recognizing a federal holiday, a state holiday, and a holiday that specifically celebrates black emancipation, now suddenly it's a fiscal concern. I'm good with moving forward with this, keeping this as a holiday. And not only beyond that, I would be interested in making the motion to make it a permanent holiday that city of Roswell recognizes it every year and not just in 2026 because the holiday exists every year and not just in 2026. Thank you.

Any other council member? Claire. No, council member Hall. Thank you. So, council member Bon, just to be clear, you're you would want to add it in 26 and not remove the floating holiday to have a total of 14. And would that be the plan for going forward for 27? Can you go to the uh list of municipalities and their total number of holidays? Um, in keeping with Fulton County, so this would align us with the county level of 14 paid holidays, which is 13 plus the floating. Correct, Dr. Pino.

That is correct. So, in keeping with Fulton County, which we're a part of, um, and recognizing Junth as a state holiday, which Georgia State does recognize, I'm good with moving forward of adding this permanently as a holiday without removing the floating holiday. I say this as somebody who oversees operations and recruitment for a small business here in Roswell. being able to have a competitive advantage over I realize they're not technically competitors, but when you have folks with um municipal experience, you want to be able to have a competitive edge over surrounding municipalities. And I think this is a way that not only can we keep and satisfy employees, but it shows that we can treat our employees better than the surrounding area. So, I'm good with moving forward with the 14.

Any other comments from council? City Clerk Long, are there any Roswell residents who would like to speak on this item? There are no speakers for this item. So, do I hear a motion to pass it? We're going to change.

Would I be able to amend the motion beyond the recommended motion? So, the current recommended motion is motion to approve adding Juneth to City of Rozal 2026 holiday calendar. But in the interest of moving forward, especially as we begin to recognize budget season, we're going to start getting into that budgeting process in about July or August or so. Um, in the interest of moving forward to council member Zach's point in committee, I would like to recognize it moving forward. So, other council members feel free to amend my motion. I would like to motion to approve adding Jun Junth to the city of Roswell holiday calendar for 2026 and all years moving forward.

Do I have a second? Council member Bremley. All in favor? Five opposed? One. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you,

City C. Nancy Long, please read the second item on the regular agenda. Yes, Mayor. This is approval of Z use 122500000000003 1050 Hulcom Bridge Road quick trip conditional use with concurrent variance presented by Jeanie Payeyton planning and zoning director.

Welcome Jeanie. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Can we get someone to help to assist Miss Payeyton, please? Let's give it a moment. Here we go. Thank you.

Good evening, mayor and council. My name is Jeannie Payeyton. I'm the planning and zoning director. Um the item I have before you tonight is a conditional use approval for 1050 Hulcombridge Road. The applicant is requesting a conditional use for a convenience store with fuel pumps with concurrent variances to the build two zone. Additionally, the project includes a 23 foot um modular retain block retaining wall. This map shows the site at the corner of Hoken Bridge Road and Dogwood Road. Um you'll recognize it as the former Red Lobster site. Um and it is just adjacent to the Summit Building. The subject property is approximately 3.1 acres on the corner of Hulcom Bridge and Dogwood Roads. It's zoned CC commercial corridor and the 2040 comprehensive plan recognizes its future land use as commercial commercial mixeduse. The applicant is proposing a 6,400 square foot convenience store with eight fuel pumps under one canopy. They are also meeting in addition to other reg all the regulations of the code the landscape open space area the amenity area requirements and the parking. This shows the surrounding zoning of other properties also zoned commercial corridor with some residential further um beyond old Hulcom Bridge and on the opposite side of Hulcom Bridge Road. Again, the item in front of you is a conditional use for convenience store with fuel pumps. The concurrent variances to the V build to zone. Section 2.2.9B for corner lots. Section 4.3.9F for percent in the primary street build to zone. 4.3.9g for present into the side street build

two zone and mayor and council approval of the 25 23 foot modular um block retaining wall. The retaining wall is proposed on the north I'll point it out here. It's on the kind of southwest corner of the building. So, here's a site plan of the site um with the proposed building, the fuel canopy along Dogwood Road. Um the front of the building where you'll enter is kind of to the rear there and the Hulken Bridge side will have um kind of a finished look to it. Um per our design guidelines, the retaining wall is down there in the lower left corner. I have some other maps um and site plans in case you have some discussion items. Um again pointing out the retaining wall where the fuel tanks will be located and where the entrance um conversation is about with transportation. This is a elevation of the retaining wall again in that lower left corner with the highest point at the corner of up to 23 feet and it reduces each direction. Um there is a large piece of property that is owned by Georgia Department of Transportation um between Hulcombridge Road and the site and it acts kind of as a buffer with um kind of an overgrown undisturbed landscaped area between Hulcom Bridge Road and the retaining wall. staff recommended to the planning commission that they approve with conditions. Um that they recommend an approval with conditioned with two conditions suggested. The land disturbance permit may include minor modifications of the site plan to meet the transportation conditions of approval and to meet all other conditions of approval that were um brought forward

during plan review from building storm water engineering fire tree and planning and zoning. On February 17th, the planning commission recommended approval with those staff conditions. In addition, they wanted to forward a list of recommended conditions that staff has provided to you in your packet. We've worked with relevant city departments and legal um to look into those recommendations and where they fit in with our processes. That results in staff's recommendation of approval with conditions. We've added one additional condition um from the list of 31 um resulting in one that would be outside of that. As part of an emergency response plan, the owner will notify the city Roswell Water Utility with one within one hour of any spills. We have any questions?

Is the applicant present and would would like to speak? We have Dakota Kurthers and Brian Moira with um QT. Good evening everyone. As Jeannie mentioned, I'm Dakota Kthers with Parker Poe and this is Brian Moira with Quick Trip. Um, I will not bore you guys going over anything that Jeanie's already been over, but I do have a couple of slides and just some clarifying points so that we can answer any questions that you might have maybe.

All right. What do you Are you attempting to use the overhead?

No, it's a different presentation. Her presentations are not Oh, there we go. Okay. Awesome. It does. Thank you, Genie. Um, again, I'm not going to bore you guys going over too much of the same information, but again, this is the former uh property formally Red Lobster. I believe this has been vacant since May, March or May of 2024. Uh, and we're looking to redevelop this. This is a commercial corridor property. And I'll point out too, right AC kind of across what's labeled there is Roswell Summit Parkway from the police station uh and along Donwood Dogwood Drive and Hulkham Bridge Road. This is our site plan. That is our latest and best version. We have been over this and several times and made many modifications going through comments and revisions with I believe all city departments and this is our latest and greatest that we've come up with. Uh we did add a turn lane over here that comes out of the property that's a right in right out from the south side. Uh we've got our landscaping and open space and we are kind of coming right up against that stream buffer making sure that we're staying out of that. I believe that's Big Creek that's over there on the side. So out of that 3.1 acres we've just got about a 6,000

square foot building plus the gas canopy and using roughly half of the property. This is just to give some visuals and I think Jeanie had this in the staff report as well. the existing Red Lobster property. This view from the street shows a little bit of the grade change and that G dot strip that is fairly wide. Once you get onto the left side of that photo, that's where the current Red Lobster is further back. We are trying to come further into compliance, although we cannot come all the way into compliance with the build two zone by bringing that building further to the front. These are our renderings in this Quick Trip. Brian and the whole team have been very excited about these because this is the new Gen 4 uh look of Quick Trip and this I believe still will be the first location in Georgia for this new design and one in about a handful across the country. So, brand new. We have been to the design review board, got a couple comments and we will still go back to the design review board uh as part of this process following approval of this conditional use permit and um so there could be minor changes based on that. But this really shows, you know, a lot of transparency to the building. They actually have a walkup window if you can see in that middle elevation there on the left side of the building. Uh, so really excited about this design and happy to answer questions about that as well. These are a couple of just different angles of the property. This is off Dogwood on the side street. And oh, you're right. That's from the hotel property that's next to us. And then this is from Hulkham Bridge Road. And

then this one is from Dogwood from the street kind of from that same Lita corner. And then again, as Jeannie mentioned, we are requesting a variance or it's kind of a grouping of variances to the build two zone. I believe a planning commissioner stated it as we would have to shape our building like a pizza to be able to meet that portion of the code and we'd have to have three times the building length to meet that portion as well, just because the property itself uh is so large. It's such a large acreage that we couldn't meet it. But we are working to come further into compliance. And in that bringing the building closer to the front with that grade change, we've added that retaining wall along the side which as Jeannie stated at the highest point is 23 but does taper off as you get get closer to the intersection. And then as far as the conditions, uh Jeie has added one to the list. So there's number one and two and number three that was added in response to some of the planning commission comments. We are completely fine with that new comment. I just didn't have a chance to add it on here. Uh but we are requesting one change to condition number one. And this to be honest is out of an abundance of caution on my part uh language wise. One of the transportation conditions involves adding another turn lane and I'll go back and show you can see it a little bit here but on the right side as you're coming from Hulcom turning right onto Dogwood and then going into the property to the northern drive there is a turn lane requested. We don't have the space on our property so we've been in conversations behind the scenes of some things that are just unknown yet. We have to have conversations with further with the city about right-of-way conversations with G dot and simply

develop civil plans. So that's where that condition amendment request has come in. And then I believe my my last one was just to make sure that the retaining wall over six feet was approved. I think the way that Jeie has stated it in the approval works for us and we are good with that. I'm going to leave the rest of our time. I'll put the site plan up. I'm going to leave the rest of our time open for questions, for discussion. We're happy to answer any anything you have. Thank you. Any Yes, Council Member Zach. Question of curiosity.

Yes. When selecting a place that sells delicious donuts and delicious coffee, did you just so happen to decide to build it next to a police headquarters? Nothing to do with our decision. I asked Brian that same question. Any other questions or comments from council members? City clerk needs Oh, I'm sorry, council member. A couple things, not to you guys. Honor, of course. I'll leave you this.

Hey, a couple questions. One is, you know, on that left turn, I know we're working with this with the uh summit as it were, right? With the summit property, um would you would you cannot wave that in uh the land disturbance. Is that correct? Or can you could you wave that? So the applicant can work with transportation to achieve a solution that resolves the issue with transportation. Um can you describe the issue just a little bit what what transportation's beef is with that? I think that thank you Dakota put a good slide in here with

um this is the solution that is existing right now. So, uh, transportation approved the plans with the condition that QT provide that left turn lane. There's still some engineering of the site that needs to be done to as to kind of establish how that's fully resolved. Um, the city does own the property just adjacent to that and there is um, I think 60 ft of right of way. So, this is the proposed plan um that uses some of the city property and turns left into the site and provides a safe um place for anyone turning left not to back up the traffic onto Hok Bridge. So, you can see if people are coming off of Hoken Bridge and turning into that lane, we don't want this the people waiting to turn in to back up into that other traffic.

That's for stacking essentially, right? and and and clearing that road. We do have someone here from transportation. Um the transportation director is here, Andy. He can maybe answer more questions about, you know, there are many ways that this could be resolved and they are not we're not to that point yet, but they have to meet that condition of approval. Okay. And there was something else. I'm sorry. This is sort of sticking in my mind and I just want to make sure I'm clear on it. This the stream buffer issue and the LA the the we're not doing a a variance for that. What do we do? What's our plan around that? Could you describe what that issue is and how we're dealing with that?

So, this plan, in fact, this plan probably shows it better. You can see um where the building is the lower leftand corner. There's a small bit of wall that goes into the imperous setback. So, this is the Big Creek buffers and we're 150 ft off of Big Creek at this point and that is a very minor encroachment. So at this point um the engineering staff has determined that a stream buffer variance is not needed because of that minimal encroachment. They'll have a second look at this in LDP. If the encroachment enlarges, it gets to the point where it would trigger a stream buffer variance. The applicants would have to go to the BZA as the authority to grant.

Right. And how big is the how big is the encroachment? Right now it's around 30 square feet or seven feet like kind of straight in linearly. Okay. So, so I guess my my concern is that I want to make sure that those things that are reserved for council remain reserved for council and these kinds of variances seem to me to be of that type. Am I wrong about that? Correct. Yeah, I am wrong or correct. I am wrong. You are correctly wrong. That's so affirmative. Am I nearing you or you went with

um so that authority is granted through our engineering division and to the board of zoning appeals. So we have two ways of doing stream buffer variances. Sometimes they qualify for administrative variance. Sometimes it has to go for a public hearing and that authority is um BZA and David could maybe speak to whether that power can be transferred to um mayor and council but it's not my we've we generally handle them separately especially because at this stage we don't know the full encroachment. The site has to be engineered for the LDP documents. A lot is to be discovered. Usually site plans end up generally um the same as what they're being presented, but there are tweaks and we would want that fully flushed out if a stream buffer variance was needed. But at the time of review, the minimal encroachment in that entire 150 foot imperous buffer was deemed not needed.

Just to be clear though, this is our this is our trip to the plate as a council. This is we won't we we not will not revisit this issue. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, so I just want to make sure that I understand what the limits of the waiver around what we approve is and that we are thoughtful about that. So, that's just why I'm asking these questions.

Sure. So, tonight what's under consideration is a conditional use. Mayor and council have the authority to grant a conditional use. If a use is not permitted, but it's been deemed conditional, it has to go through this hearing process with a recommendation from planning commission and then come finally to mayor and council for that final approval to say yes, you can have a convenience store with fuel pumps um in this CC zoning district. The second item that's before you are the three um variances to the build two zone. And our build two zone requirements in the code require the building to be located kind of street centric and push the parking behind. That's not appropriate for a gas station. It also doesn't take into account um a property with so much frontage, the 500 feet. So it it becomes near impossible for them to reach that 60% requirement. Again, that's to push buildings up towards the road, put the parking behind, create kind of a city feel. And um we have quite a few requests for variances to that section of the code. Happy to um discuss it more if you have questions. And the third item that comes just to you and not to the planning commission is the um approval of a wall over six foot. So those are the three things you're granting. Everything else, it's not as if you have a say or not. It's just done at the staff level as the project moves forward.

I just Yeah, the East Village experience is still right in my mind and uh you know it's sort of it didn't end up a whole lot like what people thought is my impression. So, uh I'm a little worried about that and I just want to make sure that we as council are clear on our instructions and what the limits of your authority are. Thank you. Sure. Um, I also want to point out I added that second condition of approval which requires planning and zoning staff to go back to those conditions that were made at this review stage and ensure that those those items are met. Often they're things that are pointing to the LDP process. And so that's a second layer of protection for those type of things.

Thank you. Any Chris, Council Member Hall,

thank you. Um just a couple of questions and and I was at the PC meeting and and um had had conversations about this. So my concern is is that this there is no turn lane on this um document and once it goes to LDP just so the public knows it is behind closed doors at that time. I mean nobody it it's like behind a wall. No public, no counsel. And I'm a little bit concerned about the language of if there's a minor minor change, we can adjust this in LDP. Well, who's to decide what's minor? If you take out a turn lane or if you change the turn lane substantially where it impacts traffic, I mean, we're going to hear about this when traffic's backed up on Hulcom Bridge Road. Um, so it's a little bit outside of our process to to bring it forward this way. And I believe the applicant was amanable to uh bringing a site plan showing the um the turn lane um to council. So I I would be inclined to be to ask for that document. Is this is this

this this is the proposed plan as it sits. And again, the transportation director is here to discuss the particulars of it beyond um the planning and zoning understanding, but this is the currently proposed plan. So, this is I I I was looking at the other document that was called the site plan. So, this is just a closeup because I did not see that on the original site plan. Yeah, this document came in after our process as transportation began to work with the applicant. Okay. Um,

and I I I would like to have him come up and and discuss this in the turn lane because um I think it's very very important um because that's going to be a very very busy intersection with everything that's going on with the diverging diamond that we are very very clear on what we are approving and and what has latitude.

Thank you. Andy Floyer, Department of Transportation, the left turn lane. Right now, we're still working with the applicant on exactly how we fit that in, where the curb lines will be, but my understanding is they are agreeing that we will have a left turn lane. Uh trying not to back up traffic into Hulkham Bridge Road. It's fitting it in there without affecting the curb radius on Hulcom Bridge, which would require them to have GOT permission to change that. So, we're trying to fit it in with how do we make this work with the existing curb radi on Hulcom Bridge and Dogwood. So, can you just explain to me if this is the site plan how you're saying that you're still working on it, but it needs to be built to this. Is that correct?

This is the first I've seen this drawing. We have been discussing, we sketched it out saying push the push the through lane over to the right, that is um city property to the right. We discussed with legal that we can give them that right away to push it over. Um, now it's a matter of the taper lengths that are required based on the speed limits on the on that roadway. How how quickly can you push that lane over um with with the traffic at the speed limit? Excuse me. I have a question for Oh, go ahead, Mr. Nighton. No, if May I mayor? Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Um so I think this this question of the turn lane is significant question and I want to make sure that you know as we go through these processes when they are in LTB or LTP LTP land disturbance permit or they're being reviewed for permit purposes that there will be substantial conformance to what is presented in meetings such as this to ensure that these things uh are followed through. Now the left turn lane is that any condition of zoning for this application?

Yes, the first condition covers the left turn lane item. There are two ways that the applicant can resolve that. One would be to shift the building and take land from their property to dedicate to that left turn lane. The second and the most desirable for them would be to use city right ofway and property to be able to achieve that. As Andy stated, we met with legal. We discussed that matter. We see no reason why they can't proceed in solving the left turn lane matter, which would mean no significant change to the site plan, the building sit sitting, anything um related to the stream buffer encroachments. None of that would be effective with the solution that is being sought after now.

Right. So, if for some reason this upon review, if this were to be approved tonight and upon review there was not a left turn lane, that would need to come back to mayor and council for approval. Correct. Correct. Because they would not be meeting that condition. Okay. Thank you. Just followup questions. Um, so when you say in LDP you can make minor calls on this, what would you deem minor and what would be past minor? Um we do have a section in chapter 13 of the code that gives a list of what is major versus minor. Examples are storm water pond significantly changing. Someone proposes an underground storm water pond

specific to this turn lane. A significant shift in the site. So if the building begins to shift more into the um stream buffer um then you know like the entire site I guess I need to go back to the I'm sorry. I'm talking about the turn lane. If there's any changes to the turn lane, I I want to know what those changes are.

Yes. So, the turn lane could significantly alter the site. If they can't resolve it on the right side of Dogwood, they would resolve it on the left side, therefore shifting the entire site plan, which it if they start to move too far into any of that property that includes stream buffers, they would a significant change. And you're asking what what constitutes significant um you know, we have we've been burned. So that's why I'm asking these questions. public's been burned.

So the applicant proposes to solve it without a significant shift to the building. The condition was written so that should such a shift have to happen, they would have to come back to mayor and council for the change in the site plan. Okay. Thank you. I just want to try to clarify because really your uh council member Zach, please please be recognized first. Did you have a comment? Anyone else on council have a question? City clerk Long, are there any Roswell residents who would like to speak on this item?

Yes, Mayor. We have one speaker, Tia Merryweather. Good evening everyone. My name is Ty Merryweather. I have been a Roswell resident for over 20 years. Um I was at the meeting last month and one of the concerns that I presented was the traffic. Um right now on Hulcom Bridge Road without the QT there, traffic backs up as people are trying to turn right onto Dogwood or or on Dogwood Road trying to turn left onto Hokum Bridge. Um, even tonight I still feel like as a resident I don't have any answers as far as what will the traffic look like on Hulcom Bridge and Dogwood Road with the QT being placed there. Um, I believe, and correct me if I'm incorrect, there is going to be an entrance to the QT off of Dogwood Road. Um, so I'm just wondering with the left turning lane, what about the um drivers that are trying to get around that? Will there be additional lane on the city's property to the right? Will there be two lanes on the left as well? So, I think there's just still a lot of unanswered questions for me being a resident about the traffic and that does concern me.

Thank you. IS

Would you like me to speak to that?

Yes, please. So, the applicant is proposing three lanes turning out. This is Dogwood Road to orient you, and Hulcom Bridge is on um your left. So, when you come out of the QT site, there are three lanes, one to turn left, one to go straight, one to turn right. Right now, the site plan that's included in your packet includes one lane with a left turn into the QT site, but this applicant is required with the condition from transportation to add a left turn lane into the site. So, when you come off of Hulcom Bridge Road onto Dogwood and need to turn left into that second entrance of the QT site to enter it, there will be a dedicated turn lane. The matter about how that is resolved is what is the matter of discussion. Whether it would take land from maybe the median, some of their property or if it cannot be all encompassed in city property and right of way and that is to ensure the traffic flow. Sorry.

Thank you, city clerk Long. Are there any other residents to speak? There are no other speakers. Does the council have any more comments or questions regarding this item? Just one just one thing on the on the picture you're looking at right here. So ju just so it's clear because it is a little confusing. There's essentially starting on the left where the FELI is right there. That is a continuous lane that moves to the moves down basically curves down and goes straight. So there's still a through lane for traffic on Dogwood headed to Old Roswell. And we are inserting a stacking lane in the middle. Mhm.

Uh which is that up arrow in the bottom to turn in basically down there past the uh the two arrows coming out. Right. So that that's what we're talking about. So there the through traffic on that street will continue unabated, I guess, is the best way to put it. Thank you, Council Member Von. My only request with that is um I assume this would be handled by AR dot for the lining of the roads for this or Dogwood Road. Correct.

So my only request to city staff is um in the event this passes um having a box to keep that inbound ingress open. Um similar to how we have like on Crab Apple, there's a couple of places where it's just you don't block the box so that way it doesn't overstack and go into Hulk Bridge Road. um if especially during morning rush hour when folks are trying to get to 400 on Old Dogwood. Um so just a a painted box to not block the intersection. That's it. Any other council member? That's what I was

council member Hall. Thank you mayor. Um back to the retaining wall. So uh 7 feet of the wall is in the stream buffer. Is that correct? Um seven linear feet. Yes. And is um the height is on the site plan of the wall. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Um well, it is on the plan that is the retaining wall plan. Um I can try to switch back to it. Would you like me to?

I would just like to be clear in the condition what the height of the wall is and not to exceed. And I also have some other language that I'd like to um be sure that we include in the conditions and I can actually go through that now maybe if we need to address it that um any variances that we're granting um are stated uh specifically and that no implied variances like no other and we talked about this at planning commission that no other variances from the requirements of the Roswell United uh unified development code UDC are approved, granted or deemed deemed waved by this site plan approval and have that have not been expressly granted concurrent with the site plan uh approval. I would I I know that they had discussed maybe having that stamp on the site plan. I think it's on the final plat usually um

um generally yes that had been discussed as part of the preliminary plat document. No, I I certainly would like to have that as as part of the conditions if if we move this forward. And um believe that's that's all my comments right now. Go ahead, David. Council member cells,

I was just David and I we're having a sidebar that this is something we can add and I think you're saying that we should. Is that what you're saying, David? Yes, I think this should be added to everything going forward. So, I think this was a good good suggestion. Thank you. Yeah. And it would be added to the motion. Sure. Council member Mahal. Thank you, mayor. Uh, the traffic study, is that publicly available somewhere? Um, yes. I mean, we can make it publicly available. I did not put it place it in the packet. Okay. Because I have not seen it document.

So, and I think maybe the public would like to see it. Could we put it up on the website or make it somewhere where it's available or part of the packet? Sure.

Thank you. Any other questions from council? And and I do want the public to also recognize while this is for this QT station, we also have to understand there's going to be some major construction going on on Hokum Bridge and the 400 interchange. Some of it coming all the way involved out to this area too, which is not something right now we have full information on as those are G DOT projects. It is our understanding that the all the construction with that project will stop just shy of Dogwood Road. I know spillover. I I wait till we see the final. Sorry.

So, Council Member Hall, do you want to make a motion to add your condition for the item first? Okay. Do I hear a motion to amend? Sorry, a point of order. You want to amend the item, right, Jeff? Not Jeff. My name is David, right? You can just make it. You can make it as part of the motion. Yeah, just make it as part of the motion. She wants me. I'll defer to you. Oh, perfect. David, help me out here, brother. Where am I? Number two.

Number two. Only number two. I would like to uh make a motion to approve the uh approval of Zeus 12253 1050 Hulk Bridge Road quick trip conditional use with concurrent variance as amended by Mr. Davidson to include the requirement that the uh variances or any var further variances would be brought back to council. Yeah. And and no other variances that I can read that language if you'd like. Something like that. Yes. Thank you. Christine can state.

Okay. with with the added language um of no implied variances that u basically states no other variances from the requirements of the Roswell United Unified Development Code UDC are approved, granted or deemed waved by this site plan approval that have not been expressly granted concurrent with this site plan approval. Do I have a second? That was the motion.

You were the first. She just added in council member Philippy. Second. All in favor. Unanimous. Motion passes. Thank you. City clerk Long, please read the third item on the regular agenda. Yes. This is approval of a text amendment to the unified development code, article 14, definitions, section 14.2, defined terms. This will be the first reading. Also presented by Jeannie Payton, planning and zoning director.

Good evening. Once again, this item is um a text amendment related to data centers. So, recently J G I'm going to exc I'm gonna interrupt you for a minute. Uh city council Davidson needs to please was going to read the ordinance first. City attorney, not city council.

Sorry. Thank you. This is an ordinance to amend chapter 14 of the unified development code of the city of Roswell regarding defined terms. Chapter 14, definitions of the unified development code of the city of Roswell, Georgia, is hereby amended by modifying section 14.2 defined terms, the text of which shall read as follows, and have approved. This is the first reading.

Thank you. So recently, mayor and council approved a moratorum on data centers. Um the the right now fix is an interim fix to um some definitions in the code to not allow kind of a loophole or a misunderstanding of what we do allow in our office use for data processing. We will be coming back with the comprehensive moratorum data use center language and um proposals related to that. So we proposed two text amendments to data and digital storage center. A light industrial use. A building or complex of buildings in which substantial portion of the gross square footage is dedicated to the housing of computer or data equipment or systems which primarily engages in digital data operations including but not limited to storage management and or transmission of digital data and housing computer equipment, network equipment, systems, servers, appliances and other associated components related to such data digital data operations. The second item we proposed to define was computer or data processing a office commercial use and refine that as facilities where electronic data is processed by employees including without limitation data entry storage conversion or analysis, subscription or credit card transaction processing, telephone sales and order collection, mail order and catalog sales and mailing list preparation. We took these items to the planning commission and they voted to recommend that we strike the data or digital storage center definition. Um they want it to be developed and proposed at the time of the use regulations for data centers and bring brought forward. Then in the interim they feel like the language in the moratorum will serve to define what a

data center is and so they would not recommend adding that. Additionally, they propose to strike the language that we propose to um them for computer or data processing and change it into the following language. Facilities where electronic data is processed by employees including without limitation, data entry, storage, conversion or analysis, subscription and credit card transaction processing, telephone sales and order collection, mail order, catalog sales and mailing list preparation. but shall not include any building structure or facility or any portion or complex of the foregoing in which any substantial floor area is devoted to operating data processing computer equipment for commercial computer applications or services such as developing, running, delivering or transmitting computer applications or services or for storing and managing the data associated with such services. By way of example and not of limitation, such computer applications or services described herein may be related to cryptocurrency mining, data mining, cloud com computing and storage and artificial intelligence. Um, this just shows the timeline. So staff recommends approval of the planning commission language um to move forward to help with that computer or da d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d da processing language that is in our current code and in the meantime continue to work on the data moratorum questions

city clerk long are there any Brazwell residents who would like to speak on this topic there are no speakers for this item. Does council have any comments or questions regarding this item? Do I hear a motion? Council member motion to approve uh 10244 approval of a text amendment to the unified development code article 14 definition section 14.2 defined terms. This is the first reading. Do I have a second? Councilman Brumley. All in favor, raise your hand. Passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you.

City Clerk Long, please read the fourth item on the regular agenda. Yes. This is approval of a resolution to update locations in the city of Roswell to designate paid or restricted parking areas and approve the staff recommended initial implementation plan. Presented by Jeff Leatherman, deputy city administrator.

Mr. Leatherman. Give him a minute. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity to bring this item forward. Uh we've been discussing and uh tackling the uh parking conversation for quite some time here in the city of Roswell. Um I will do my best to provide some background um to how we got to the recommendations we are here tonight for um and then provide some additional information based on some questions that we've heard since our February 13th meeting uh where we spent quite some time about three hours talking about parking as our uh leadership retreat uh report out. This is one of the major topics that we discussed um during that meeting. Um just as a reminder, uh parking inventory analysis and history. Uh parking has been a challenge and an opportunity in and around the downtown corridor for several decades. Um part of the challenge has been created really over the last 15 20 years is we've started to amend our unified development code for parking requirements in our downtown corridor. that caused um and created opportunities for economic redevelopment in and around the downtown area, particularly around Canton Street, where we essentially limited the number of spaces that would be required for businesses to operate in our downtown core. Um this is not uncommon in

historic districts and particularly where you have a lot of buildings close together, not a lot of historical parking in those areas. uh cities are challenged with how do we provide and create opportunities for the community to create business and do business in our city without the requirement or changing the requirements for parking that you would normally see in the built environment in other areas around our city. Uh we've done a number of parking studies really even over the last 10 years. I've been here for eight. I believe the 2024 parking study was the second that I'm aware of. Um the DD or excuse me our visit Roswell team I think along with the DDA did one early on. um we came behind them in 2024 um and looked at uh the parking in and around the downtown area to see what has changed over time, what opportunities did we have? And that led into the conversation around the bond for the parking deck. On the lefth hand side, you see some of our analysis that uh we created back uh with our original parking analysis. Um we saw that there was essentially about 8 837 parking spaces that the city controlled. There was some additional spaces at Magnolia and uh the Green Street lot uh that created around a thousand parking spaces in our downtown area. The risk was that those parking areas were not necessarily either adequate, meaning there weren't enough or they weren't all 100% controlled by the city. Uh, and so that created some risk for the city that if some of those parking spaces like the Green Street gravel lot or um what is known as West Alley were to go away, we would start to potentially lose parking spaces or we would have additional businesses that would require additional parking and so we have more constraint in and around our downtown area. Uh we in 2019 started some control around the downtown area where the council at that time passed some uh fee schedules for Canton Street, Elizabeth Way and East alley where we would charge for parking. Um as we've discussed many

times I think myself included at this dis and in some of our work sessions the enforcement of that parking meaning um the issuing of citations and continuing to turn those parking spaces over since 2019 has been loosely enforced. Uh we did I would say an enforcement pilot program this last summer where we issued warnings um and then stopped issuing those warnings after a couple of months just to see what the effect of turning over parking in and around the downtown core would be. What we found when we started issuing those warnings was that people moved out of the spaces and found other spaces to park because we saw a lot of long-term parkers, meaning people that were there for four, five, and six hours in those high priority areas along Canton, Elizabeth Way, and East Alley. Uh, and so it continues to be an evolving challenge that we have in and around our downtown area of how do we provide for parking. This is gives you a map. Um, this is an updated map that is not in the packet. be happy to provide this as one of the attachments of the areas that we've been discussing in and around the downtown core. I will say that there's uh one noticeable difference that is not included on this map, which is the West Alley lot. Um because we don't own that lot is currently in an agreement with the DDA. I didn't highlight it as a managed area, even though we do provide free parking there at that location under an agreement. Um we don't intend to change the status of the use of that lot. Um, so I did not highlight it as a paid or a managed parking location, but on the table for discussion is how do we tackle uh the downtown corridor? We see Canton Street, Elizabeth Way, East Alley, and the East Alley lot there right in the center of the map. Uh, the Green Street gravel lot is there to the top and of course the new parking deck all the way at the very top of the map. Uh, conversations around city hall have been ongoing for the past year. We have the new parking deck which is down at the very bottom center of the map for Hillros. Uh and then some portions of the cultural arts center are also faded in a light pink. Um as part of this discussion today,

we did announce um at the Green Street uh deck uh groundbreaking that uh the parking 395 spaces at that time. We announced in the summer of 2025 that parking would be free for residents. Uh the challenge is is that we did not model that uh specific policy decision that was announced at that time. So, we didn't know what the fiscal impacts were at the moment in time in which that was announced. The additional challenge is um and I've heard a couple and seen a couple of questions that we did not know exactly how we would implement a technology solution. We knew that it was technically possible um to distinguish residents and non-residents, but we didn't know exactly how that would work here in the city of Roswell. And we spent a few months working through that process with our technology providers, came up with a handful of solutions that could possibly work. and we discussed that at our February meeting. Um the challenges associated with distinguishing a resident and non-resident population. I'll provide just a quick summary of our probably about 45minute discussion around the the resident to non-resident scenario. A couple of things. If you use driver's license as a way to identify people in an incoming, you could scan those driver's license um at a pay station. Uh the challenge that we have is is we have Roswell residents that have driver's license that demonstrate that they are in the city of Roswell, but they also um we have licenses that are in the city of Alpharetta and they are Roswell residents. That happens on the east side of town. And so we can't necessarily distinguish by the city um because we also have people who live in Cobb County but also have a Roswell resident address. Uh so that was one challenge as we started to look at various solutions. We also started to look at solutions where we would create a registration system and that was really where we fell to our most viable solution where every resident that wanted to be considered in the city of Roswell for free parking under that scenario would have to register with the city. Um they would have to enter into a database voluntarily. That database would have to be processed by somebody here in staff.

Uh and then that would have to be managed on an ongoing basis. Um so anybody that was considered a resident, they would need to register. But anybody that moved out of the city, we would have to find a way to figure that out. Um, take them out of the registry. Um, but not take them out of the registry if in fact they were still a Roswell resident. And so it became very problematic to understand how do we manage a Roswell resident registry when you potentially have multiple drivers. Myself, I've got five drivers in my house right now. Um, I have a couple that or at least one that is at college. Um, I have one that soon will be at college and then I have a 16-year-old plus my wife and I. Um and so you think about all of that movement um in different households and how that would potentially work. It became administratively cumbersome to try to tackle. Uh we estimated in some of our modeling back in February that it would roughly take about $100,000 in staff time per year to manage that database process across our 90,000 residents here in the city of Roswell. As we look at the modeling that we've done, again this is uh base modeling. We don't have any experience exactly at the green street deck for how many people are actually going to be using it and for how many hours they would be using. And so these are approximate and these are forecasts related to revenue that we expect to collect over uh the course of a year. We use this modeling to forecast our revenue as well as our expenses. Uh you'll see in a couple of different slides that the revenue modeling establishes both the utilization rate, so the percent of time that a space is utilized throughout the day. And we've broken that down to weekday, weekday evenings, weekday nights, um, and also for special events. The rate is essentially the cost per hour to park in a space. And the effective rate is the city's actual cost of collection after any technology or vendor processing fees that we would have. So all of those assumptions are built into our revenue forecasting and into our modeling. And that allows us to run different scenarios.

uh we'll run through the different scenarios uh or at least I'll describe them um from our February 13th meeting so that the community who maybe did not attend that meeting or watch that video will have a general sense of what we did about a month ago. This is just some additional background and provides uh the baseline for where we are in the 2026 budget. Um revenue is forecasted on the surface parking as well as the green street deck of about $422,000. Uh this assumes that the green street deck starts uh charging for parking in May. If you recall when we were building the budget at the time, this assumed this resident versus nonresident uh parking scenario. We didn't know how we were going to implement it, but we did forecast it in the budget and we assumed essentially 50% of our attendees or parkers that would be in the parking deck were going to be residents and 50% would be non-residents. We used this number because we assumed at the time that uh the resident demand would potentially grow in this area um and we would see more residents that would normally come down to Canton Street park at the deck. Um I also want to note on the right hand side this is for the first year in 2026 we started to consolidate the true effect or the expense of all of our parking and the provision of the downtown parking for the city of Roswell into one budget line item. These expenses over time have been um in different budgets. They've been in the transportation and recreation and park budget. This is the first time that we've consolidated them down into a parking budget. What I mean by that is actually it was in the economic development budget as well. The b last bullet point on the right hand side, $50,000 annually for the Green Street lot rental payment. Not a lot of people know, but we do rent from the owner of uh the Green Street gravel lot. We rent that lot to provide parking in the downtown area at $50,000 a year. That line item used to be in the economic development budget, but we moved it over here into the parking budget so we could adequately demonstrate the total cost of

providing parking in the downtown area. We also had areas um around the west alley lot, east alley, Canton Street, Elizabeth Way where we provided maintenance services related to parking and that was both in the recreation and parks and the transportation budget. Previously, we consolidated all of those operating costs down here into this budget in 2026 so that we could see again the true cost of providing parking for our downtown community. What that resulted in on the bottom left hand side is a $376,000 general fund contribution in 2026 um to support our parking operations even with the revenue assumption of $422,000. So, we are using general fund dollars um that could be used for anything in our community to supplement and support our parking operations in the downtown core. Um this is an important piece because I want to highlight uh what we can and can't do with the bond. Um I'm going to ask Mr. Godshaw to come up and give us just a quick uh commentary around the rules and regulations with our general obligation bond for the Green Street deck because I think it's an important piece of information for both the council and the community to understand the limitations that we have as it relates to both capital and operating on the green street deck itself. Mr. Gotch,

thank you Mr. Leman. Mayor Council, thank you. Uh I just wanted to touch I talked with Jeff earlier today and I reminded him under the Georgia law for general obligation bonds uh which we raised in 2022 under tranch A in 23 uh and trunch B in 2025. Uh the parking deck bond is covered by those uh rules and regulations and they prevent the expenditure of any proceeds raised under that bond to be used for operating items. you can only use it for capital items, capital projects, and city assets. So, even in a case where you entered into some type of prepaid maintenance arrangement or some other long-term contract, it would still not be eligible um for funding through a general obligation bond. So, that's the the idea that we've co-mingled both operating and capital is literally against the bond laws in the state of Georgia. As I mentioned earlier in February, we looked at approximately 13 different considerations for how we could potentially affectuate charging for um parking services or potentially not charging for parking services at city or at the green street deck. Um, recommendation number eight, which you see before you, was the final recommendation that staff had. Um, and we were requested at that time to move this recommendation forward. I'm not going to go back through all 13 of those once again, but I will just give a quick summary. We looked at a whole variety of different scenarios. We looked at the modeling associated with resident versus non-resident, and at least financially, regardless of the technology limitations, what could that potentially do? We also looked, if you look at the very bottom of this um grid, you'll see the different uh weekday the utilization rates and the parking rates. We looked at a higher parking rate and a lower utilization rate, meaning we looked at what if we just park uh charge for

weekends and weekend nights at a higher rate at $5 per hour and not charge weekdays and weekday nights. uh we looked at a whole variety of different uh charging and fee scenarios to see where the the modeling and also the financial performance would land. The challenge is is that in all of these we see a variety of different results all hovering around a general fund subs subsidy for the green street parking deck regardless of what we choose. The question really becomes how much of a subsidy or how much of a general fund contribution are we potentially forecasting for our 26 and then again for our 27 budget. In this case, what you see if everybody were to pay and we would have the rates uh for the weekdays, the very top listed at $2 per hour, we'd essentially forecast that we would generate right around $800,000 annually, which would cover the cost of the deck. As we take out the weekday rates, you see there's about eight hours and 20% utilization, and that rate is at zero. That decreases your revenue expectations for the Green Street parking deck and increases by about $200,000 the overall general fund um contribution in 2027 for the Green Street operations and for the Green Street parking deck. So, with our staff recommendations that are included in the the the packet tonight, and we'll go over those, we are still assuming at this point in time that the general fund or the taxpayers could and might be supporting the Green Street parking deck operations by about $200,000 annually. So, we have not solved the revenue and expense number all the way. That is also why it's really important for us to get into the parking deck, understand what the utilization rate is over a six, seven month period of time so that we have better numbers to really see what

the revenue and what the expenses are going to be looking like. We've done our best to estimate what we think the utilization rate is based on what we're going to be charging. Um but until we actually see how the market responds to both the rate and the provision of parking, it makes it difficult to be ex uh exponentially uh confident in the numbers at this point in time. So again, this is our best projection as we're moving forward. We're doing our best to make sure that we manage the general fund implications of the parking operations moving forward. Meaning decreasing the obligations. Right now it's $379,000 annually. decreasing those obligations through a paid system that brings it to $200,000. Does that make sense? All right, we're going to transition to Hill Street and to the HillRose project. I wanted to provide some additional background. We've received a number of questions around the Hill Rose operation over the course of the last few weeks and even few months. uh the council, we've gone through a number of different scenarios, but I wanted to make sure that we provide some clarity on how the Hill Rose um structure affects a parking conversation. The Hill Rose parking plan includes 350 spaces in the parking deck, but it also includes 159 spaces outside of the parking deck. Those are in two locations. One is on street Hill Street, which is what you see right now. And there's second, there's about 66 of those spaces. The second is an additional 96 spaces in the city hall parking lot on the on the south side. It's probably the best way to think about it, or the Hill Street side of the parking lot at at city hall. Those 96 spaces are assumed to be part of the Hill Rose parking plan. They are assumed to be part of our fee for parking plan to pay for the deck. Um, that has been, I think, some question that we've received over the course of the last couple of weeks. And so, I just wanted

to make that clear. You'll also see the $4 million advance from the town home that buys down the parking deck bond payment. And you'll see the visual and the financial representation of what that means in the next slide. Um, revenue from the parking deck includes 200 parking spaces that are leased by the multif family at a set rate. and that was already negotiated as part of the development agreement with another optional 73 additional lease and office retail spaces also at a set rate that escalates over time. The remainder of those 4 or 509 spaces are part of the general public parking that drives the revenue for the bond um which you see on this slide. Now, there's a lot going on on this slide. Um, so I'll do my best to explain. What you see, the line that is going through the slide there is our expenses. That is both the parking and the debt for operation of the Hill Rose revenue and expense projections. The colors that you see on this slide are all of the different revenue sources that were negotiated in the HillRose project that pay for both the operations and the bond of the parking deck. So, you have payment from reserves. If you remember the $4 million that I just talked about, that goes into reserves and pays for a portion of the deck for the first two years until we start to see occupancy at HillRose. Then you have um parking for the public, multifamily, and office in 2028. You see those colors start to show up in different areas. So, you're using lesser of the reserves and you're starting to see revenue from the development agreement moving through. So you're seeing revenue from the multifamily, revenue from office, and also revenue from parking. As you work through till 2029, you see that the um additional uh reserve is being used moderately. And then in 2030, we don't expect that reserve to be used at all, but then it dips down in 2031 and 32

with a small fraction of the reserve potentially being used in order to complete a full buildout of the Hill Rose project. This again assumes the whole 509 parking spaces, the deck, the street and a portion of city hall. So when we talk about why is city hall included in this conversation, we also have to think through what is the potential effect of having multiple vacant or non-paid spaces in the city hall parking lot and how does that potentially affect this model and this financial projection. Um, so I wanted to make sure that everybody was clear. We've talked about that a number of times over the last few months. Um this is the first time that I've laid it out in this way and so I hope that it's much clearer for people to understand um how the revenue is stacked in in order to pay for both the bonds and the operating at Hillrose um for 2026 to 2035. Again, this modeling goes out 20 and 30 years. Um so there's some additional numbers that are behind this, but this gives you really a snapshot of the next decade and at least what we've forecasted at this point in time. And so as we think through the implementation recommendations for both Green Street and the Hill Street or Hillrose parking plan, um our policy recommendations landed here is that on the Green Street parking deck, all customers would pay with dynamic pricing, meaning that the pricing would adjust based on demand. Um that demand is not adjusting on a daily basis. That's d that's adjusting after we get data in and we see where demand is. It could go down. It could go up. We could see a dollar per hour or we could see $250 or even $3 per hour based on certain times of the day and the demand that we see. One of the changes that this council requested at our conversation in February was that you would like to see Monday through Friday that all customers would be able to park for free at the Green Street deck from 8 to 4. Um, this allows the daytime transition for supporting businesses in

lunchtime. It also would allow for people that are parking for longer periods of time to park in the deck regardless um during that time block from Monday through Friday from 8 to 4 and then after 4:00 they would be assessed a parking fee if they remained in the deck on street. This is the Canton Street, Elizabeth Way and East alley areas. These would transition to a full-time dynamic pricing model. right now. Um there are some times of the day, Monday through Friday, and on the weekends, where you can park in those parking spaces for free for an hour or for two before you're charged a parking fee. Um, as we think about turning parking spaces over in the downtown corridor, um, charging for parking on an hourly basis at these premier parking spaces would help, um, to turn those parking spaces over and make them available for customers that are coming into the downtown core in our I'll say our front door, front of the storefront parking. We also heard from the community that we really want to look for an opportunity to support employee parking. And so this council asked that we look through and we haven't developed the exact policy and how this would function but utilizing the green street gravel lot and transitioning that from currently a freed paid paid parking into a monthly parking pass model that would be specific to businesses and employee parking. We have about 66 to 70 spaces in that um parking lot that would allow us to open up employee parking in a way that would dedicate that to support our downtown businesses. that is specific to Green Street and the downtown On Street. As we took one step further, we started to look at the Hill Rose, Hill Street, and City Hall Cultural Arts Center. As you'll see my note there, the implementation would take place in the future. We're trying to just get some framework so that we know how to go and have a conversation with developers um at the our partners at the Atlantic Company to understand what we can expect from a parking model and how that will affect the modeling that we've done thus far. What we're recommending is is the dynamic pricing model with

implementation that is coordinated with the developer based on our forecasting. That's the um graph that you saw earlier. Uh with these caveats that at the city hall and cultural arts center, all customers will park for free Monday through Friday from 8:00 to 5:00. City hall customers will park for free um and will receive validated parking during night meetings. Um so if you're here for a night meeting such as tonight, there would be parking validation. Dynamic pricing, would it be in effect at all other times? and operational hours. And this was an addition from our February meeting that the city hall and city employees would park for free at no charge regardless of when they're here in this law. I have some supplemental information that I can also provide if we get into some additional questions, but those are the two recommendations that we have moving forward um tonight and be happy to entertain council questions and I know we have some members from the community that are here um to answer.

Thank you, sir. I I have uh two questions. What please remind the public what was the actual dollar amount of the Hill Rose bond for the parking deck that was a revenue bond here at the city? The I will the DDA but it is under Yeah. So the bottom line where you see the expenses parking and debt service um the there is a stairstep effect of the revenue bonds that start out with the first payment in 2026 of 537. not asking for payment. What was the total amount? The total amount of bond that was issued was 19 19.7. Thank you.

Yes, sorry. 19.7 million. And then my the only thing I saw also um in regards to understanding the concept your concept of meetings here at city hall. What would be the consideration for people attending performances at the cultural arts center? Thank you for the question. I think in our discussions we would consider that also essentially city business at that point in time and so people attending shows at the cultural arts center could be validated. But of course we would take additional direction from the council on how you would want to tackle that.

Thank you. Council have any questions. Council member Bremley. Oh, do we? Let's go to the public first. So, city clerk Nancy Long, are there any interested parties who would like to speak on this item? Uh, yes, Mayor. At this time, we have 14 speakers. The first is Jennifer Donlin.

Welcome, Stalin. I'm kind of glad I'm going first because I think I'm going to have an unpopular opinion. Um, so first I want to thank mayor and council for the many hours and phone calls and texts and emails that you all have gotten um and the time you've dedicated to researching this uh issue and trying to find the best path forward for all of Roswell, the businesses, the residents, and the budget. Um, I'd like to tell a very short story before presenting my opinion. Um, at last June's open mic, most people remember a lot of back and forth about Mimosa Hall. Um, I was not able to attend, so I was at home watching the meeting on YouTube because a new friend of mine agreed to speak on my behalf about the first ever Pride Walk in Roswell. And selfishly, that was the only reason I was watching. Um before my friend spoke, a woman came up and poured her heart out regarding Roswell Housing Authority. Her house was without air for over a month. And again, this was June. It was a very hot June. She has five kids. Four of them have asthma. And she begged for the city or anyone to care about them and acknowledge them. After that, a fury of women wanted to do something to help anything. Could we get them fans, uh, window AC units? Was there a generous HVAC company that could come out? Could we give Groveway Community Group money to allocate to RHA to help in some way? We quickly found out that it wasn't that simple. Some of the residents in RHA may even be too scared to plug in a fan for fear that it would blow a fuse and then they would be evicted as a result. So, what does this have to do with

parking? Um, it's actually quite simple. This is an extremely privileged problem. So, why should a Roswell resident who can't even plug in a fan in 95 degree weather pay for parking via taxes? Why should someone working two or three jobs and still barely making it have to pay for free parking for all? Why should someone who never goes to Canton Street because they can't afford a $16 drink, a $30 salad, and share a $12 appetizer end up footing the bill for people who absolutely can afford to park to pay when they park and visit our downtown area. So, take the enforcement costs out of it. The maintenance costs will still exist. Now, do I think the model that is being proposed is the best model? No. Am I a parking expert? Also, no. However, after some research, I would advocate for a hybrid model to be considered. First two hours free with modest hourly rates after that and consider daily caps. Two hours is ample time to get drinks and food. In fact, the other weekend I visited Canton Street and found out they have an hour and a half cap on weekend lunch. So again, I know that no outcome is ideal. Nobody wants to pay for parking, but a hybrid model would be the closest to a win-win. So, thank you.

Thank you, city clerk law. Yes. The next speaker is Bill Ray.

Hello. Welcome, Mr. Rick.

Hello. And uh thank you for your time here. So, um, I spoke before the council in late 2024, uh, stating my position to the widespread, uh, parking, paid parking plan that was put in place at that time. That was the first time in the 20 plus year resident of Roswell that I felt compelled to speak and of my concerns. I'm here again to speak against the paid parking plan. To begin, I see Roswell really defined by three attributes. It's our history, it's our great park system, and it's Canton Street. This is a special sauce that differentiates us from other cities. The vitality of Canton Street is critical to Roswell's success. Just look at Zillow real estate postings and see how many times the proximity to Canton Street is highlighted. The attraction of Canton Street drives property values and by extension the value of the city of Roswell. This proposed parking plan does nothing to make Canton Street better, more vibrant, or more accessible. Quite the opposite. It is headwind. It is friction. And it's a barrier. Next, look at our pure cities. Alpharetta, Milton, Crab Apple area, Woodstock, Sandy Springs. All of which have problems have programs providing free parking to visitors. You can't ignore that Roswell is in competition with these neighboring cities. Once someone's in the car, all of these destinations are an easy driving distance, and now it's a matter of choice. I've heard about the Green Street

parking garage was paid by bonds and that maintenance can't be included. Okay. Well, collectively, as a city, as voters, we committed to $20 million to build this parking direct. Roughly, it's logical that by the same collective decision, we committed to the cost of maintaining it. We bought the parking deck. With that comes the responsibility of maintaining it. To me, this is like buying a car and then after the purchase realizing you got to pay gas for it. You buy a car, you know there's additional costs. I am saying we as a citizens are smart enough to know and accept once built other costs will follow. It defies common sense to assume the parking deck was one and done construction obligation. I've been through the presentation of Hill Street. Uh it's my understanding we we I'm just going to skip that part because you covered it again, but basically that it's a standalone project. the the current parking plans include the conversion of the balance of city hall and uh and the cultural arts center as paid parking. Now, I'm strongly opposed to this concept as taxpayers. We paid for those lots of spaces originally and every year since then we've in we've uh in in maintain the maintenance on them and the upkeep. There's nothing new here to our fiscal budget for those spaces. I also asked, is there really a gain for the pain here? They talked about this, you know, very convoluted maybe uh administrative implementation costs, carveouts, you know, special events. We just touched on them, but there's things there's alive after alive in Roswell,

performances of the cultural arts center, youth day parade, the farmers market, Memorial Day celebration, music on the hill. Will all those be parking exempt or is those now all feed events? with a city budget of over two about $200 million. What are we really talking about here? When you get where the pluses and minuses of the cost to implement versus the the revenue versus paying a vendor, it looked like two looked like about 75% of the revenue was going to the vendor. We were keeping 25% of the profit. My position is clear. I think I speak for thousands of Roswell citizens and saying don't do this. We know when the Green Street parking deck was built, there was going to be an ongoing obligation. City Hall and the Cultural Arts Center are free parking and don't change that. Kind of in closing though, you know, there's a couple questions. Uh, you know, given that the City Hall and Cultural Arts Center parking exists today, why are they getting pulled into this discussion at all?

I'm I'm sorry, Mr. Ray, your time is Oh, okay. Well, I'm about done. Sorry, your time is up. Thank you so much.

Next speaker. The next speaker is Daryl O'Hare. Good evening, mayor and council, and happy women's history month. Um, I'm Daryl O'Hare and I'm a Roswell resident for now 28 years. Um, March 17th will be um 28 years ago, we bought our house and we still in it. I'm speaking tonight about the proposed expansion of paid parking and the broader policy behind how the city funds and manages public parking infrastructure. I understand that cities sometimes use paid parking to manage demand in hightra areas. However, many of the locations currently being considered are public facilities that residents have already funded through taxes or bonds. For example, the new parking deck coming online soon was financed through a bond approved by citizens. It was not structured as a revenue bond intended to be repaid through parking fees. Residents supported that project through public financing. So converting publicly funded assets into paid parking ch changes the expectation under which voters approve that infrastructure. Similarly, locations such as city hall parking, which on December 9th of 2024 got me in a big argument with the former mayor, but city hall is the people's space and the cultural arts center have have

historically been public access spaces maintained through the city's tax base, charging residents to park at facilities they already support through taxes effectively means residents are paying twice. Once through taxes and once again at the meter. There is also the issue of consistency. We already have situations where different parking policies exist side by side. The Hill Street deck was approved and paid parking as part of a development agreement while directly across from it city hall parking remains free. I did watch almost every one of the Hill Street presentations and not once, not once did I see city hall parking included in that agreement and that really upsets me because I have sat through a lot of these presentations and I did ask um Sier representative about Hill Street parking specifically back early in the project and I haven't seen any of those figures until now. So that that one actually sort of gets to me, but we don't have consistency. The Hill Street D deck was approved with paid parking as part of a development agreement. While directly across from city hall, it remains free. And without a clearly defined citywide parking strategy, these competing systems can create confusion for residents and visitors. Another concern is the financial side of the proposal. In pre previous budgets, the city projected parking revenue approaching $2 million. That estimate was later scaled back after it became clear there wasn't sufficient data to support it. And the revenue collected has been only a fraction of those early projections.

Before expanding paid parking further, residents should be able to see a transparent analysis comparing expected revenue with the costs of installing, managing, and enforcing the system. That analysis should also include how the system will be managed if paid parking is implemented. The city should consider whether the revenue remains within the city rather than being shared with thirdparty vendors. A municipally operated system may require upfront investment, but it allows revenue generated from public spaces to return directly to the city. It would also be helpful to see a comparison between funding parking through general tax revenue versus a feebased system. While it is often said that there is no such thing as free parking, the question is how these costs are distributed across the community. Finally, paid parking at places like city hall raises practical questions about civic access. Residents attending city council meetings may now have to navigate a payment system and then request a code to reverse the charge, even if the intent is to make parking free for meetings. That extra step creates friction for people who simply want to participate in their local government. public infrastructure funded by taxpayers should not quietly become a new fee charged back to those same taxpayers. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mary Lucas. Mary Lucas. Next speaker. Miss Lucas apparently um had to leave. Roman Persac

before I'm Roman Persac before I'm talking I want to congratulate to the new mayor and new council. You probably went to the classes to get officially certificate is certified by state of Georgia to be cancelled. I hope you enjoy it. Uh, we've been talking about the parking several years and I remember in 24 when the program came here, it says we want to have 100,000 parking lots. We'll charge $6 per parking. And finally, we'll get a $2.2 2 million revenue from the parking and he even put it in the budget. This was according to report that you pay I think $175,000 to give you a study what you shall do. I think the value of the papers was more than the value of the report. The study was incorrect. The statistic not incorrect. They even recommend you to go to Wikipedia to see what kind statistic you may use. And I hope for that we're going forward you not use any letter from this report. Uh I just hear for that we'll have only 500 parking lots now not 1,000. Uh my question is now you're adding additional six parking six six additional location and I understand that this will be about 500

parking lot it's correct some somewhere there or 300 in the green

okay my question is if you will come here in a year you will ask additional places in a year after additional places or this is the final plan. Uh I think here I see in uh in the agenda item all kind of stuff that we need to what uh when we need to pay the money and will not I think there are some mistakes I'll show you because it say like here uh on Monday taking parking from on Monday from 8:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. But no will will be no charges for parking from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Other times no charge. I don't know what it means but you can check. Uh I think there's a big confusion. We're going to parking with a system. It doesn't matter what system it will be but we know with electronic system people have problem with that will credit cards on their identification I don't know what but is a problem who coming to parking lot and suddenly doesn't work I don't know what and nobody will call me I can call and say what can I do because the gate is not opening for citizen that we paid the bonds and everything. I think we can have a sticker on the car that we receive from the city. They will read on your dash that we are resident of the city and we live in the city. This is everywhere we can go. We have a on the dash and identification and I think this will solve a lot of problem

and very simple uh this is my idea and I think another point I think that we should start with the deck to see how people behave and then continue with additional parking you will see the deck is full with people using it we can then add additional parking thank Thank you. Next speaker, Courtney Roger. All right. Um, thank you everyone. Um, thank you mayor and council. Um, thank you. Also want to start off thanking everyone because if you read my email, there was a lot of questions. So I appreciate just the time and effort just for me as a citizen considering my questions. Also, I want to thank um Jeff. he and I had a conversation and he spent a good bit of time with me and so I really do appreciate that. Um, and some of that information that from our discussion also informs some of my comments. Um, I did send an email today with a chart that I created. And so, reading from that, Jeff was kind enough in his presentation, he did point out that taxpayers, and I'm rounding numbers, are going to be paying 377,000 um, dollars in addition to the parking fee and the um, bond payments that we also pay with our property taxes for those to which it applies to.

Um when we look at the operating cost, the operating cost is $425,000. Um and also in the um retreat recap presentation, it points out that and Jeff also mentioned it here earlier that to do that differentiation between residents and non-residents would increase um the amount of money needed uh for operations by about $100,000. So if you take that 377,000 um and then increase it by about for the eight months that um 100,000 what I came up was about $443,000 dollars. So we're basically operating at a loss if you want to call it a loss either way. we're either going to as taxpayers be paying $425,000 for operating costs plus potentially some additional um cost and transfers that might still apply um which makes up the 800 total. Um so that's part of the reason why I'm here today and asking for free parking. Um because I think that there are more benefits for us having and remaining the free parking especially when the cost is going to be the same whether we enforce the parking or if we provide free parking at the end of the day. Um also I want to point out that similar to um others who have pointed out um there hasn't been a discussion in regards to the city hall or cultural arts center in the past during presentations. Um similar to Miss O'Hare, I've uh went

back and I listened to different meetings. Part of that is because um back on April 28th of 2025, I um there was parking policy changes that were being made and I specifically was asking about those um changes in policy because Old Mill Park was being added to the designated area and I was going back to the Seir plan which basically activated the whole city and I specifically was concerned about city hall and in that presentation ation or in his in the exchange um former mayor Wilson indicated that city hall would remain free. So I would like to know and perhaps Jeff has this information because it kind of came up and I think in our conversation um in the resolution it indicates that the development agreement had city hall and um the cultural arts center committed to the hills project. So I would like to know um when that development agreement was signed. Um, also in my email, I made recommendations to table the proposal. And so that's one of the things that I would ask for this evening is to consider consider tableabling this proposal having two dedicated meetings to discuss with the public what is the HillRose development agreement um related to parking and parking services because one of the things is with the HillRose presentations there has been a lot of um discussion in regards to the bond and paying the bond but I haven't heard about how the operating cost is going to be handled. So, it it seems to me that this is an basically compounding. We're going to be co um having operational cost for the green street and surrounding um areas to maintain the um landscaping etc. that goes into that operating cost. Then we're going to have HillRose operational

cost and then the also the retra retreat recap mentions West Alley and another potential bond and the city taking on that responsibility too. So I would ask that we table the proposal have a more public at least two more public discussions that are concentrated on parking. Thank you. Next speaker, Ryan Perise.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you so much for fostering this debate. I'm so excited to be back here. The idea of parking puts us in competition with our sister cities. And we've all noted this that no one likes us to think that we're in competition with Alpharetta, with Sandy Springs, with Woodstock, with Norcross, but we are. We're in competition with them for visitors to our downtown, for businesses to open in our community, and for the quality of life benefits that a center such as Canton Street provides. And if you doubt the quality of life benefits that Canton Street provides or you doubt that our residents and visitors want to be on Canton Street, then come down on Saturday night when it's due to be about 75 and sunny and tell me that people don't love the idea of having that amenity in their hometown. Right now, we're at this point where we're going to add another undue burden to the idea of operating a small business in our historic downtown. Other cities around us have figured out how to offer free parking. We should be able to do that as well to remain in competition as everyone around us further invests in their downtown core. The way I thought this should work is that when you put a parking deck in place, it enhanced the vibrancy of the businesses all the way around it. And the way taxes work, we don't get to decide where my taxes go. My taxes go to pay for parks I don't use. They go to pay for schools my kids don't go to. But a rising tide lifts all boats. And so as we support the vibrancy of the small businesses in downtown Roswell through this parking deck, as we offer this amenity to our citizens of free parking, those taxes increase by way of greater visitors to visitors to my business and other businesses downtown. We pay more taxes. Our business registration occupancy taxes have already gone up many, many times. So, as I pay more taxes to the city, we

are then able to use those taxes in any way we any way you see fit. And that's, I think, something we should consider is that by enhancing this quality of life amenity, a rising tide lifts all boats. So, help me pay you more taxes. Another thing I want to mention is that it really seems like we're bending over backwards to accommodate hills. I really wish we'd spent the same attention I wish we'd spent the same attention or a fraction of the time supporting the businesses that have been here for decades already. My restaurant earned a Michelin recognition that brought a lot of attention to Roswell. We've been here for 15 years at Table in Maine and 13 years at Osterhea. And we've been paying taxes and supporting this community that whole time. So, it's real cool. We've got this new big player here. And I'm gonna love going to HillRose. I don't think ill of them at all. I want them to succeed, but I wish we'd gotten the same opportunity. And I wish this city had thought about putting something I would deem as sacred as the idea of free parking at our city hall. This is the people's house, but you got to pay to park here. Doesn't seem to have a good ring to it. The last thing I want to mention is that it seems like a wild swing to go from all free all the time parking, which is roughly where we're at right now. You've got the antique lot, you got a charge there, but mostly the parking downtown is free. How big a change it is then to go to a model where now everything is free. And I want to go on record as saying, frankly, seems I had it better with Mayor Wilson. She promised that at least Roswell residents would be free. Now, I get he didn't know how to do it, but he was at least talking the right talk. So, I stand up here because I've been in this spot many times over my decade and a half running a business here in Roswell, and I'm tired of coming back

here. The citizens, the businesses of Roswell have been asking for help with parking for a very long time. This is our moment to do that and to solve something we've been trying to solve for a long time and offering free parking like our competitive sister cities around us are doing. I support free parking. I also agree that maybe all free all the time. Maybe that's too much in one end of the spectrum. Okay. Well, let's look at a model like first two hours free. But to go from all free to all paid all the time everywhere. That seems like a bit too much. So I've staked out a point on this side. I want to do free parking all the time. But if you say that seems untenable. We need a little bit of kick in from people. first two hours free, something like that. Grateful. That's compromise. That sounds like the right thing to do. Last thing I'll say is we want to help as businesses. We want to be part of the conversation. You all have my email. You all have my number. Help me get a group of business owners together and let's kick the idea around. But I think we can solve this in a way far more satisfactory than all paid all the time. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ron. Next speaker, Denise Woodall. Hi there. I'm Denise Woodall. I'm a resident. I'm at 162 Oxbow Road. Um, been living in Roswell since about 2014. I was a renter and then I ended up purchasing a home here. Um, so I'm a teacher and I actually work too many jobs, more jobs than I care to say right now. Um, so I really didn't have time to be here, but I came here because this issue is really important to me. In fact, I barely had time to even figure out what's going on. Um, I do remember hearing that there was going to be paid parking and I remember saying, "Don't worry about it. residents will be free. So, I didn't worry about it. And now I'm hearing I just sat here and listened to you all ask a million questions about a turn lane, but then didn't know how you were going to implement this free parking for residents after and going through all this. I was just like, that's kind of baffling. Um, so I I really don't know what the solution is. And I'm changed as I'm sitting here. I'm impacted by the first speaker and I do care uh very much about um our working poor here and I don't want people to be overburdened and I don't want the poor to be burdened um with higher taxes. It for I'm a sociologist so I'm sorry but um I I just feel that there are other funding streams that this can come from. It does not need to come from um residents paying for parking. It shouldn't have to come from uh increased taxes on people. Another thing is just like trying to understand

what's not my job to understand um is that it will deter people from coming to businesses here. And so the money that you're going to make with this parking, we're going to lose in sales. So you're I don't know that we're accomplishing anything. And I don't know what the what the deal is with the private company, but I'm concerned about they're they're going to make a bunch of money. So, I'm sure they're going to have all day and all night to run reports that I don't have time to run. But I will say this, I come downtown every day. I walk my dog. Um, I feel safe here. This I came I I moved here and I wanted to live here to have community. I'm I need more than two hours, too. That's not enough because I'll park and I'll walk and I'll walk my dog around the um historic homes and I'll meet up with a friend and I'll be down here all day sometimes when I'm not working. my other jobs and I don't want to pay by the hour. I can't pay by the hour. Um I literally cannot afford the bill um to do that. And I came here and I live here to to have that. I can go live in a somewhere where we don't have what we have here and pay a whole lot less money and pay less of a house payment and pay less in taxes, but I pay all this to have what we have. this to me this and I'm here tonight because this to me to begin charging for parking is absolutely destroys that and definitely I mean just like the whole like logic of like charging at city hall that we already pay taxes for and then we're going to charge to park you're like no sorry I don't care what time it is this should be free but if you're charging everywhere else we know what's going to happen everyone's gonna be parking in this lot and then I'm not going to get my free spot so I don't really know what the solution is because it's not my job to do that. I have enough jobs. That's y'all's job. Um, but I do appreciate some of the comments about, you know, I need to see those numbers. What is it we're going to make? What is it we're going to lose? What is

what are what is happening? I don't feel like there's really any coherent um proposal that I'm seeing that we're what we're going to benefit from any of this. And the hybrid model, as beautiful as it sounds, does is it's very stressful and it feels very confining and I don't like it. I like that we have the freedom to park and be in the space that I pay a lot of money to live near even if I can't afford the $30 salad. Um I can go in and get an app or something. But and I do I actually organize meetups and I have friends that come here and all my friends want to come here. I'm like come here, come to Roswell. We hang out. They have money. I don't. Um and this we can park anywhere. That's not an issue. Um that's going to be an issue immediately. I already know people aren't going to want to come. Um, and I hope that I wish I had a solution for you. I don't. I just wanted to speak as a resident that really cares. And I really am out there every single day walking around, walking my dog. And I feel really safe being able to do that. And I love that if I can't afford to do anything else, I can come down here and just hang out and walk around and and see people I know. And I want to continue that. So, thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, Jason Yao. Well, three of you on council and the mayor are blameless. uh and yet I know you're taking a lot of heat from people because uh topic is now the five minutes is just not enough to adequately address the particulars in in the parking disaster that we've got after four years of absolute ineptitude and incompetence by the previous mayor. So, I'm I'm going to just ask some questions. Is there any possibility that the having paid parking on the Green Street parking deck, will it create more revenue against the the the expense of administering it and buying the technology to have it because if it doesn't, then the answer is don't bother doing it. It's a waste of time. Um, as as far as what's going on uh with HillRose, the principal stream revenue streams that we're getting for the land we put in to the deal uh is contracts for parking with the apartments and the and the retail. My question is who's paying that? Is it the res is it the the tenants or the

landlords? Because for example, the biggest chunk comes from the apartments. But is the apartment building owner paying for the parking for every unit from day one or do we only get money as the apartments are rented from the tenants. And the same thing goes for the commercial. If they haven't rented out the commercial space, does the developer on the hook to pay the the the parking fee or is it only once he gets a tenant that that fee gets paid? It's not clear. Um nothing is clear. And part of the problem is that everything that was done with the bonds for the last four years was so poorly thought out. And that's giving it a lot of credit because it it was one monumental piece of stupidity after another. Wastes of money. Um the the next item, which I'm also going to speak on about the bonds. Well, we've got a a a revenue bond or or a general uh obligation bond masquerading as a revenue bond. And one of the line items is for the parking. Oh my god. Now, is that line item for the technology to make it paid parking? Or is that just because it's cost overruns on the parking deck? I don't know. It's a mystery and it shouldn't be. Uh I I I just we've got people on council. We've got people on uh who are employees of the city and we have had consultants that have no qualifications to do the jobs they're doing and they've left a

tremendous mess and it's really disturbing because I look at it and I see what what what is the thought process and evidently there wasn't a lot of thought process on any of it and we're left holding a big expensive stinking bag of bonds. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker,

Raymond Jacobs, of the council. Good evening. Good evening, fellow citizens who stuck with this out. Thank you for hanging in here, guys. They're important.

Not that you're not. I don't have a lot to say. I'll just say one thing in combin. All right, we get past a whole lot of minutia. Bottom line, I think, is we have to consider one thing. Parking is a business. And in being a business, you have to consider how you're marketing it as well as how you're entertaining, how you're actually providing for it. I hear you talk about city hall. I don't see a lot of people wanting to walk from city hall to Canton Street in any given day. I see the vast majority of the income revenues that will be gained from the people who deal with Canton Street at the businesses. But we offer parking. we charge for parking. That's enhancing our businesses. Now, I'm not to say that I'm anti excuse me, I'm not to say I'm anti- business because I understand this is the wealth of the community. I've been in Roswell for 32 years. I remember when all of this was horse farms, literally Woodcraft or Woodstock used to be five ranches out there in 15 big buildings or five big buildings and a general store. So parking has always been on my mind. I've seen parking go from bringing it all to you can't park here. All right. You have to come up with a plan. We can't just say no, we can't. We're going to have to pay for parking. It has to be considered from all the aspects. Don't forget the marketing. I keep on thinking about this parking deck. Half the people that come to Canton are not going to want to walk to that dag on parking deck. I'm sorry. I've seen it happen in Marietta. Marietta built the parking deck. It's the you you can park there for free because there's nobody in there. All right? And that's a city of that's comparable to what we're looking at here. So when you make your

considerations, consider all the aspects that we've offered today. I'm military, okay? I talk proposals. Bombs come run. All right? So I'm talking solutions to you. Think about the fees that are being charged for I hear nothing about I heard the gentleman mention fees for the parking deck. What are the fees? What was the consideration for the fees? Is it possible to enhance those? Can we have some of the businesses that are currently going to get more revenue with our adaptive parking to provide something for that parking benefit? I don't know. We talk about taxes and gentlemen, thank you for your chicken, buddy. Uh it's great. But we talk about the revenue from businesses, but in all consider all seriousness, they're making money based on the adaptations that we've made in Roswell to enhance their businesses. So maybe something can be done to gain something from them. I think the issue at this point in time is we don't have solutions. We don't have answers. We're not ready to make a decision. Everybody here who was on the council has volunteered to step forward. I don't know what your individual skills and expertises are. I know we go to we go to cons uh consultants for everything, but I don't even know if we got the skills to know we got a good consultant. History hasn't proven that we've been too successful in that area. So, with all the little one minute and 23 seconds I have remaining, I just want to leave you with one thing. And by the way, young man, five kids, car poolool, employee parking. Don't put it in a gravel lot. That's a place where you can have your community, have people come in who who are going to be customer base. Move them to city hall.

One walk across the street. They don't have to worry about moving a car in 2 hours or 3 hours. Makes sense to me. It makes sense. It's a parking lot that's really underutilized. If you really want to make it really happy, put a trolley system in like we had at one time. Have it go by one or two hours, one every hour something so the employee can come by. There's there are options that we're not looking at. It doesn't make sense for me to come here and pay a tax bill and pay a bill on the tax bill to pay to park. I mean, each one of you would be in subject to that. Okay, I'm going to tell each one of you care tonight. I want you to park and I'm not paying you for the evening. How does that affect each one of you individually from the sensibility situation? I can only say I've been here for 30 something years and I seen horses coming up and down the Roswell road. Now we got cars and trucks. We're building. We went from a village.

Thank you, sir. to a failing city. Thank you. Next speaker, Jenna Aranowitz.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. It's very nice to be back at the podium. Thank you for having me. Thank you for the invitation. I'm not going to talk for very long. You all know me. You all know that parking is air to businesses, to restaurants, to retail. Without parking, we really are not in business. There's one thing worse than no deck, and that is an empty deck. We don't want to see an empty parking deck in Roswell. We hope not. I understand a very hard challenge that you all face. You're faced with a conundrum. You have a parking deck that has been built that needs to be maintained and there's no budget for it, but the residents have already paid. So to ask them to pay again is just not feasible. We've been waiting years for this parking deck. As Ryan said, it's like I mean I've been there for almost 11 years and I've been hearing about it for all 11 years. So the fact that it's here is wonderful, but we can't expect the residents to pay. Time and time again, I have guests coming to our restaurant and I said, "Where have you been?" Oh, I'd come more often, but it's so hard to find a parking and I don't want to pay $20. I don't want to pay $10 and those parking things that you use to do the parking and they never work and it's I spend so much time so that you know this is a special occasion so we're here today. I'd love to come every day but I can't because the parking situation is such a disaster. So to now implement payments and fees and all this for whether

whether uh residents or non-residents, it's a deterrent to our city. Rather, let's fill that parking deck and have people come to our area, spend more money, which in turn is more sales tax for you guys. Let that be the payment. As Ryan had stated, our occupational tax has doubled, tripled, quadrupled in the last four years. Let's use some of that money to go towards. As I said, you guys are faced with a terrible conundrum because none of you were well, a lot of you were not part of the decision-m and it's now caused you to be in a situation. But I beg and I ask please I don't start charging for parking for your residents nor your people coming to the area. I do have one question a few questions about Hillrose because none of that makes any sense. I'm not sure if Jeff can answer a question for me. How many apartments are supposed to be built in Hillrose?

143. So let's I'm going to round up. Let's make it 150. They're only building 350 parkings. Correct. 350, right? In the deck.

In the deck. Okay. So, if you've got three, let's say there's two people living in in each apartment, sometime there may be three or four. Um, that equates to, let's say, 300 cars. Where's everybody else going to park? There's only 50 spaces for retail. And now we're going to use for city hall. City Hall can't be Oops. City Hall can't be the solution to everybody's parking problem. It can only be the solution to one. So, I just I think my biggest concern is Ill Rose is not building enough parking. We're back to square one where we started many years ago. Um again, I appeal to you guys to please consider not charging for parking so that we can grow as a city and start overtaking everybody else around us. Thank you guys.

Thank you. Next speaker, Charles Middlestat.

Good evening, council. My name is Charles Middlestat. I'm a a resident. I'm not a business business owner or restaurant tour, but I live on uh at 144 Canton Street. been fortunate enough to live on the street for 15 years. I've been a a resident of Roswell for 30 years. And so I have watched all all of the development uh all the growth, all the wonderfulness that comes with being uh you know having the the luxury and the honor of really living in this you know crown jewel that that we call Canton Street. that is um what attracts so many people um to our beautiful city. And so I think you know this decision is so so important and it requires so much consideration and and it's obvious by listening to um Jeff's plan that a lot of time has been spent considering a lot of different things. but what it feels like to me. And I and I I will say I want to disclose the fact that I know virtually every restaurant tour on the street. I'm friends with all of them. I've heard all of the concerns, all of the challenges that they've had with parking for the 15 years that I've been on the street. And um uh I think it's it should be very notable that u Ryan is one of the loudest voices on this issue when he in fact has two restaurants that actually have parking. And so what that tells me is that it it just is emblematic of the fact that he understands that what is in every what is in everybody's interest affects all of us. And I understand that too as a as a a homeowner that my property value uh goes handinhand with the success of

everybody in this community. And so the the only issue that I the one thing that I have heard tonight loud and clear and I don't want to you know repeat a lot of the very um I think thoughtful comments that have been made so far and and suggestions and considerations. But the one thing that I have heard is let's slow this train down. I don't think we're ready for this decision tonight. I don't think we're ready at all. And and I don't think it it feels on some level like we've taken what was we've we've had this big buildup to this parking deck which is finally about to become uh a reality. And right when we're about to make decisions about what that's going to look like, we've decided to include everything else around all of the other parking opportunities um that exist within the within this uh immediate area. and and now we're going to make a decision not about a parking deck, but about every parking space in the surrounding community that's going to affect every single business on a very very significant level. And so we're going to suddenly take we're all of these um guests and patrons and that come and frequent our great our great street and we're suddenly just gonna on a on a dime we're just going to change the rules for everybody. Why don't we just take take the parking deck and let's see how that works? Let's just do a test for a few months and see exactly how much traffic it really is going to get. It's not exactly the closest thing to Can Street. We may be surprised but but I think we should have a you know a much slower approach and let's just look at that one new um amenity that frankly is an infrastructure I view it as an

infrastructure u uh investment that we should be making. It's just like, hey, if we want to stay competitive with all the surrounding areas that we are in fact competing with for business, it's like sometimes you got to do a renovation to stay, you know, to stay competitive. And to me, that parking deck is exactly that. It's something that we needed to do as an infrastructure for this community in order to stay competitive. And that's just the cost of doing business. And so that's not something that needs to be passed on to to everybody. It should be free for that very reason. It's something that the community should absorb because we will get that money back in tax revenues in sales tax in in extra um visits to all our restaurants and businesses. This is either going to be the goose that lays the golden egg or it's going to lay a rotten egg for us if we're not careful with how we approach it. But I I really think we should really consider just slowing this down just a little bit. There's there's this is a really really important decision. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Lisa Stamy.

Good evening.

Is it Yeah, it's still evening, I guess. So, I'm kind of with Jennifer that this is all a place of privilege because you have to come here to this side of Roswell to actually participate in this um discussion of parking. Be it that you come to a mayor and council meeting that you have free time to come do that or you go out to eat. Either way, it's all a privilege that you are coming to this side of town. Um, during his presentation, he said that businesses that along Canden Street have a different parking aotment than every other business in town. Um, can you tell me what that number is? the different. Okay. So, I'm just thinking of my businesses in East Roswell that are clamoring for business each and every day and they don't get the benefit at all of a reduced parking aotment that they have to do to do business. If they have to do 50 spots, by God, they better have 50 spots. Okay? So, it's a privilege and an honor that you have this beautiful Canton Street that you can walk up and down and spend hours at going from place to place giving your money. Whereas in East Roswell, none of that happens. You go to one place and you're done because there isn't another place to go to. Um, but I do think that we need to look at what is the overall cost if we just suck it up and pay it. Just as taxpayers, what do we do? Suck it up and pay it. Is my tax bill a

whopping $10 extra? Is that a whopping $25? Is that $150? Well, if I don't have the privilege and the honor to come down here and spend $30 on a salad, right, $150 bucks is really gonna hack me off, right? But it also means when I come to city hall and have to do business, I don't have to worry about paying to park or am I going to find a spot or is the council decided that it's going to be paid during the exact minute that I'm going to be there and do I get a ticket and then what is that going to cost me? And am I going to have to go to court for that? And what like what does that cost me? So what is the amount that it cost us to suck it up that we made these really bad decisions that we just have to pay? And maybe we should talk about that versus is it going to be paid for this hour and this hour? Like just tell us what the suck it up cost is versus the it's going to be free and it's going to be like it's great. Like I just want to know my suck it up cost. And if my suck it up cost is 150 bucks an hour, I'm really glad that I have the privilege to pay the 150 bucks an 150 bucks for the whole year and be done with it and we don't have to have this discussion anymore. Right? That's the kind of information that we as citizens need to be able to come to you as council and be like, "Yeah, um it's going to cost us 50 bucks to not have this discussion anymore. That sounds like a great plan. Thank you. Next.

Excuse me.

Next speaker, Steve Rocklin. Good evening, Jeff. Madame Mayor, welcome. My name is Steve Rocklin. I live at 73 Woodstock. I have been a resident of Roswell for 47 years. Uh, I've seen an awful lot. You're my sixth mayor I've got the privilege to speak in front of. I know most of the council, Mr. Knighton, Mr. Davidson, many, many business deals. Um, the first thing I'm going to say, and I am affiliated and a partner in Lola's, Zest, and North End, as well as have a building permit in front of you all for the new house steakhouse to go in for Elizabeth Way, which will be a big revenue builder for the city. And a a lot lot of lot of people will come here for that restaurant. Paid parking is bad for business. It is not good at all. And I have entertained the people from Gainesville recently because we're getting ready to put two restaurants up there. Alolas and a Zest. They have three parking garages. None of them are paid. The city has those surrounding parking garages so people can walk to the square just like we walk down Canton Street from one end to the other. And it gets kind of desperate if we got to pay for parking when we haven't figured out yet. Lighting up the trail from the parking lot back here at the city over to Canton Street so people feel safe and they can walk back and forth and don't have to worry about it even when restaurants close late at night. Also, better signage.

Where are the golf carts going to park? Because we've got a couple hundred of them now. There's no parking for golf carts. We're paying for cars. We're now haven't figured out where half of the other things are that we need to get and get straightened out. The cities around us don't have paid parking and here we are supposed to be Roswell and we're going to have paid parking. It's upsetting to our customers. As Jenna said, people come up, they don't want to be nickeled and dime for five and 10 and $15 when they're trying to come here a couple of times a week and try and do all the other restaurants, the shops, all the parks and stuff. It's ridiculous to pay for the soccer parking when you got to walk from the soccer park all the way back up to Canton Street. Um, I think what you need to do is and what we need to look at, as Charles said and several others, stop for a minute and try and handle all of the other things that need to be done. And here's I'm going to give you the best example. Everybody here knows Southern Post. For 18 months, they were charging for parking. And now it's free parking because they just about damn ran all 10 businesses out of being in business. The restaurants were hurting. People would go there and get $40 parking tickets and then they won't show back up. So talk to your 10 businesses that went into the Southern Post because now there's free parking in that parking garage. You don't think that's something when you're going to be paying for parking in our new parking garage and across the street's free? Answer how you're going to handle that. That's something that better be answered before you go ahead and go forward with paid parking all over the city. Um, I think what we need to do and really really because it will affect our businesses greatly. As we were talking earlier, there's probably 25 30,000 residents in the city for homeowners, condos, town houses. I am one of those. I would rather where my water bill

comes, my sewer bill comes and my property taxes come, have a bill for $20 for that month or on my property tax bill, $80 or $100 for the year and get it taken care of and be done with Roswell parking fee and be the then the residents are paying for it. It's over with and I don't have to worry about it. It's paid for with all the other stuff that goes on. There's no need for me to have to have pay every time I come downtown, every time my friends come down downtown, and every time my kids come downtown. It's ridiculous. We're here 5 days a week, and I've been on Canton Street for 35 years. I mean, I don't see how you're ever going to get this to work out where you don't have ill will and you don't have people going, "Oh, I don't want to go to Rosal. They charge for parking." That's something you're going to have to figure out. Thanks, Thank you. Next speaker.

Yes, this is the final speaker, Cat Plant.

Hello. Um, I just want to speak to everyone at home or who might hear this later. Um, because I think there's a lot of things that are confusing unless you like really follow along. Um, I want people to understand that the reason for paid parking is not the shortfall of the $377,000 from the parking deck bond and what it's going to take to operate it and the the maintenance and everything. It's about making the deal for the HillRose project to make sense. The land lease deal didn't make sense to me when it was first discussed in council, but former male mayor Wilson and Mr. Cells were adamant that it would make the city gobs and gobs of money for the next 50 years. When I asked what the plan was when things don't go according to plan, because to me it sounds like the taxpayers will be left holding the bag for this very expensive development, they assured me that there was no way that this wasn't going to be the best deal ever. Another stroke of genius from the godsend that is Peter Sorcoff and Seir. Now I understand the real plan is to make parking all over downtown Roswell painful. Otherwise, no one would pay to park at Hillside. It was a crappy deal when it was made, and now we're starting to see the outcome of it. Look at what, like you just said, look what happened at Southern Post. People will choose alternate options for dining and shopping and personal services when they have to pay to park or when they don't forget to re-up it and they get their $40 ticket. They will not come back. It's going to be like that everywhere. Aside from that, I'd like to point out that all the downtown businesses that do have parking are now going to have to take on the the

fifth, sixth, seventh job along with everything else they do to monitor their own parking. Those of us that do have parking, we're now going to have to keep the people that are going to HillRose, to Canton, to whatever it is out of our parking lots because they have to pay everywhere else. that is I can assure you that I don't have time in my day to be dealing with who's parking in my spots. Um I'd like to point out that the cultural arts center is filled all throughout the year with productions from youth youth groups. Um those are all volunteer-run by parents who fill that parking lot all the time. I mean are we going to have to be validating stuff every day? Like what what what is the point of that? what is the point of paying making people pay to park there? Um, and I would also love to know why Alive and Roswell is gonna be um excluded in this paid parking thing of all events. Hey, how about all these people that are coming from all over that? It's been said over and over and over that it these are people that come from outside of Roswell that come and fill our streets, trash it, make, you know, pee all over the place, puke behind cars. They can pay to they can pay to park. That's fine. They can pay to park, but let's leave everything else free. Okay, that's all. Thank you.

Thank you. There are no other speakers. Other speakers. Council, do you have any comments? I'm sorry. Questions? Questions, comments? Counciloman Phelp.

Um, thank you to all the speakers. Um, you had a lot of compelling things to say. Um, I do want to say that that we have been talking about this since our swearing in, so it it it hasn't come quickly for us. Um Jeff, I do have a couple of questions for you that I was trying to get um straight. So um when when was it decided that the city would go into the parking business? So parking as an economic development strategy um dates back to the scope of work where we evaluated parking and I believe that was in 2024 under the SEIR contract. Um that was really the first um decision point I think with the evaluation of the overall parking plan around the downtown corridor. And then from there we started to work with the Hill Rose and Hill Street at the time, the Hill Street project. And the development agreement and the associated uh bond agreement for the Hill Hill Rose parking deck was really the first time that we got into I would say the business of downtown parking. Um, I would say that prior to that, uh, the West Alley project, uh, always anticipated some sort of parking deck associated with the original hotel project. And this goes back to 2018, 2019. Um, the West Alley agreement at the time included some um, parking provisions in their parking deck that would be available to the public. And then the vast majority of the future parking deck uh parking spaces would be specific to that development. Um so you know between those two projects really probably 2018 as best I can recall is when we really

started the conversation and then it got more in depth in 2024 um as it related to the Hill Street project um and beyond. You know the first uh inventory of uh the parking and somebody had mentioned the $2.2 2 million that was anticipated as part of activating all of the on street and surface parking in the downtown core including city hall. Uh so there was parking spaces down Mimosa that was considered as part of that evaluation as well as city hall west alley gravel lot green street gravel lot as well as the on street parking in Canton Elizabeth and east alley. So, it was in 2024 when all these additional spaces including city hall, the cultural arts center, all the things that are on the agenda tonight were first identified.

That's when we first started the discussion. Yes. Yeah. So, um, so we've been talking about all of these together and to, um, Cat Plant's point, part of the reason why, um, the Green Street deck is being considered the way it is is because of the Hill Street, um, deal like we're looking at all of this together.

Yeah. The essentially the the parking the downtown parking has to work together as a system. And somebody a couple of the speakers had mentioned you know the the downtown parking on street Elizabeth Canton East alley along with the parking deck in Hillrose and city hall. Um you know you can consider them as oneoff projects but really it's about the system of downtown parking and how you provide parking in the downtown corridor that needs to be looked at holistically. And so as we think about the green street deck, it also causes us to look at what's happening in the future, which is really 18 months out at the Hillrose parking plan, which is not just the deck, but is the surface parking as well here at city hall. So yes, it all works together. Just happens that Green Street is coming first um in that plan, meaning that it's going to be opening first, which is the reason that we're having the discussion tonight. So then um as has been mentioned last summer it was announced at the groundbreaking um that the hill at the green street deck would be free for residents. It was around that time also that the budget was being proposed. The budget slides that you showed indicated that um that that was the consideration that revenue projection there is based on residents not paying for parking. Correct. Correct.

So then through the budget conversations, how was it discussed? What were the discussions about how this would be accomplished? You mean actually the implementation? Yes.

So once we adopted the budget, we started to work through our technology provider at the green street deck. Um as I said earlier, you know, conceptually you can kind of get your head wrapped around is it possible from a technology perspective. Um and we knew that it was possible to distinguish between residents and non-residents. as we got further into our work and really it was about November of 2025 where we really started to narrow down okay how feasible is it really to start to distinguish between residents and non-residents and that's really where we came in from a operational perspective with the recommendation that we put forward at the leadership conference was it's just not realistic to try to distinguish in mass resident versus non-resident and so we needed to look for a different set set of recommendations for council to consider as part of our revenue um strategy for the parking deck itself. Uh as you look at the the numbers above, essentially, you know, somewhere in the neighborhood of about 60% of our downtown visitors are non-residents. It's give or take. It's different for each area, but that's generally what we see in the data. Um and so we brought that number down to 50% just so that we get a sense of what the potential budget projection should be. It still leaves us with the challenge um from a technology perspective. One, how do we meet a revenue expectation that was set in the 2026 budget and how do we bring a recommendation forward uh that accomplishes that recognizing the the technology limitations? And that's what you have before you tonight.

Um so then when we're looking at the expense numbers, there's $35,000 in salary and benefits. um which I'm assuming that's needed for um for the paid parking implementation. Um I also have been trying to figure out of the 424 operating expenses since this you know we we decided to put together all the operating expenses of all the parking across the the city. How much of that 424,000 is is new just for the Green Street garage um operations?

Yeah, the Thank you for that question. The vast majority of it is new um because it relates to also the landscaping in and around the deck. Um and it relates to landscaping along the what will be the new green street improvement area. As the green street goes one way, there will be new landscaping requirements around that. Um as well as uh the overall operation of the deck, so utilities um and other supplies. Now, keep in mind that what you're seeing here is the 2026 budget. That's only a portion of an operating year. Uh, and so I know this question had come up. You know, I started to do just based on our budget estimates. If we were to not charge for parking at the parking deck, what would the annual carry cost be? And it's roughly about $500,000 annually that we can expect. That also includes roughly $100,000 of long-term and deferred maintenance and future capital improvements. So on an annual basis about $400,000 of operating costs if you were to not charge for parking plus another $100,000 that you know from a fiduciary perspective you should be setting aside we should be setting aside for future repairs and maintenance of the parking deck that's going to replace elevators. It's going to replace uh concrete electrical and major maintenance at the 10, 15 and really 30 year mark for a deck.

Okay. And then can you um talk a little bit about the importance of timing? So, we have a lot of residents asking us to pause. Why is it important that we make a decision tonight on Green Street? And also, why is it important that we then make a decision on the rest of the spaces when we have quite some time before Hill Street comes online? So, a couple of things that we're doing right now for both the Green Street and the Hill Rose and Hill Street projects is um Green Street, we have the technology, you know, we've made decisions on the technology going into the Green Street deck. So, the technology as far as the gate arms, the license plate reading system, all of that is going into the deck. If we want to uh be able to have the best opportunity at hitting our budgeted revenue numbers, we need to start charging or some sort of revenue generation at the Green Street deck in May because that's what we've essentially forecasted from a budget perspective. And so we really are the the purpose of the Green Street conversation is driving at a budget forecast now. Um, as it relates to HillRose, we are working through all of the technology choices in the deck and in the city hall parking lot and working on the design. Those are actually being submitted to us now because that is the first thing that gets constructed as part of that project. And so certain policy decisions that we are recommending tonight helps us uh make certain technology decisions that we need to be able to put into place uh with the construction of both the deck and the on street parking that is currently under design and being submitted to the city. So that's the driver on the Hillrose side. As I mentioned in my slide deck, we're making technology decisions, but we don't necessarily need to make full-blown policy decisions as it relates to HillRose right now. So we still have some time. Um but the technology decisions we're essentially making now and the infrastructure is happening now.

Um one more question I thought of um we haven't discussed this um but what are the considerations for the parking at the library if it starts being paid at the cultural arts center and at city hall? How are they going to um keep people from parking at the library? So the library is not controlled by a city and is not uh planned to be managed through the city. So Fton County will have that obligation. Um right now what you see generally after hours is the library parking lot gets used very often and regularly. Thank you. Council member Zach. I don't know what I did. Excuse

Sorry, I'm moving the mic. Let me know if this is good. Um could you pull up the slide of uh HillRose and the revenue bond? Um, ju I guess first point of clarity, we what is the the term for that bond? It's a 30-year 30-year bond.

Okay. And just just to make sure I'm not crazy. So that means what we're seeing here is even with public parking being paid, we're expecting for expenses. Okay. We're expecting for expenses to get covered. Okay. So, and this is to Cat's point really what this decision is coming down to is because if it wasn't for HillRose, it's a pretty easy decision, I think. So, what's the what's the exact gap if public parking is free that the citizens are going to incur from this revenue bond in that blue section? And that's taking that number minus the excess and expense. public uh you saying parking if we were to make parking free at Hillrose.

Uh well, I think the kind of the earlier point that there's this whole strategy that for the revenue bond for HillRose to be able to cover itself is that blue section of parking is paid parking. Correct? Yes, sir. And the fear is if we don't have paid parking at city hall and we don't have it at the parking deck, then that blue section will get cannibalized. Correct. That is the risk.

So my question is if that gets cannibalized, what is the tax that is going to have to come out the millillage that is going to have to come out of residents to cover the expense. So would be some portion if you look at public uh parking public in the the table forum uh halfway down the center and it's the blue and you can run that across and there's no public parking in 26 and 27 and you see $369,000 is the first number in 2028. That's the line item that essentially would be at risk if you made parking free uh at the Hill Rose parking area. So some portion of that line would be at risk and you can kind of track it across. It goes from $369,000 and in 2035 up to almost a million dollars. Understood? I guess and it's okay. It's quick math, but I'm trying to figure out what the delta is with that minus the distance to the expenses. So like in your and to be fair, I'm looking at the later years once you get rid of the um payments from the reserves,

right? Um, so we're exceeding expenses and then if you remove that, we're going to be under expenses. So it's not just a matter of removing the blue, it's a matter of the distance after you remove that. Yeah. And it would be really difficult to even forecast that standing here to even understand what the behavior is going to be of the res of people going to Hill Rose. I'm just going to kind of take an educated guess looking at it. That looks to be another 500,000 um that would be brought onto the the residents. That's just my rough guessing,

fair estimate. So to that as well, kind of a follow-up question. I I do think that there was a strategy is a strategy. I don't know if it's still going and that's kind of my question that with Hillrose parking as a economic development strategy was executed and I think the continuation of that is parking needed to be charged elsewhere to make this deal work. What is the continued strategy with that? Is that is that something that is still going to be leveraged as a tool? Um and who owns that strategy? Do you own that strategy?

The the economic development parking as an economic development strategy is within the economic development team. So yes, it falls under my group of the organization. Uh the council ultimately has the decision on whether or not you would affectuate that strategy in other projects moving forward. As I mentioned earlier, the West Alley project is one that has a potential to see some sort of parking or parking bond associated with it. We've talked about it in other areas of the city. Um, but as been mentioned earlier, you know, ultimately the council also has to agree to back those bonds whether they're sold or pro u process through the DDA or the RDA. Um, and so the council has the ultimate decision authority on whether or not that strategy is something that we would continue to implement in the city. Councilwoman Bon,

this isn't so much a question as a comment, mostly for the public. And I will also preface this with I am not my most eloquent at 10:00 at night. So if this doesn't make sense, apologies. I should be horizontal by now. normally um this is not going to be a popular decision either way, right? So what the question that's presented with the board in front of you uh with all the council members uh the vast majority of us collectively inherited this question the for context the bond question was on the 2022 ballot which is the exact same ballot that I was on and I'm the second longest sit uh sitting council member that sits in front of you today. Um so it's not a fun decision. Um, also as well in terms of us charging for parking, I think it's fun to think of us as taking like a Scrooge McDuck bath with gold coins and just having a great time with them. We would pay for the same parking that you would pay for. Um, additionally, if it were to be free parking, I believe it was Miss Roger who might have said it. Um, if not, I'm sorry that there's no such thing as free parking. Contextually speaking, someone is paying for it. whether it's in your property tax dollars, um you're paying for it at the arm, if even businesses, I'll use for example East Roswell, uh I love going to From the Earth and Wits and Chef Woos and everything in that shopping center, they're paying for their parking. You don't pay for their parking. Those businesses incur that cost. So in some way or another there's also the question of equity of why is it that those businesses have to pay for parking within their rent or the shopping center has to pay for it. It's also covered in their property taxes because it's a part of their parcel. Correct Mr. Leman? It's part of their parcel their estimate for the size of their property taxes. So there's a question of equity too. I don't think anyone on this dis intentionally wants to hurt any single business in Roswell. Same with talking about paid parking. It's you're putting the pressure on the

unpaid parking also in that demographic. I've run an office in downtown Roswell, really close to where the parking deck is going to be. That means that that gets to be my new hobby as well of staring out the window and wondering if our employees don't have enough space to park. We're not retail, we're an office, but still that's going to impact our parking as well. So, regardless of what the elected body decides this evening, whether it's free parking for residents, free parking for everyone, uh that it's paid parking, whatever that payment is, I don't think anyone's sitting here waggling our fingers and thinking this is a very fun and exciting time for all involved. Um, but we do appreciate everyone coming out tonight and sharing their opinions and being able to provide context for how it would affect you personally. So, I think that just tries to set the standard a little bit from all of us up here. It it it's not as fun as you might think it is in terms of making this decision and the amount of questions that we've belabored staff with over the last several months at least, but definitely years I would say on behalf of the existing council members and myself prior to the new body. But thank you,

Council Member South. Be a while. Got a few questions as you can. This is the first time I've seen this and I' I think I'm gonna have to challenge you on a couple of things, but uh one in partic I'll just I'll just begin with that commercial real estate tax line. Talk to me about how many square feet we're talking about and how you get the $10,000. Um so the commercial real estate tax is uh really directly related to I'd have to go back. Give me a minute and come back to that question. I'll come back at it. This is not right. That came um well, let me give me a minute and then we'll come back to it.

All right. So, let let's just um let's do some math if we could. You you uh somehow or another we came to it was $500,000 of of incremental cost if we charge zero for Green Street, right? Okay. That's only Green Street, right? That's not HillRose or any of the other parking. So, it's it's just that. And um so I ask I like to do a little math. We're we're dropping like flies. Maybe we should take a break, Mary. Or no, let's finish this item. Um we have more. We have three more items after this. So let's go.

So So uh let's do some quick math here. A a mill. Sorry. Aaron and Chris want to hear your comments. Oh, they chose not to. Thank you. Yeah, keep going. Go ahead, Alan.

All right. Well, I'm trying to come to uh Lisa's uh suck it up cost. That's what I'm working on right this right this second. That's what I'm trying to figure out right this second. Um so uh because I had heard it was something like in the order of $800,000, not $500,000 of incremental costs when we start talking about the pol the parking policy. Am I wrong about that? And by the way, I just want to be clear. What we're talking about here is the parking policy. It certainly has an impact on the on the on the Green Street deck, but we're trying to set a policy for parking in general. That's really the purpose of this conversation.

Uh I I think from your perspective, and let me just see if I can talk it back to you, is is from an overall cost of the operation of the deck that would include the necessary staff andor contractor to charge for parking and run that system. The operating costs are roughly $800,000 a year. My $500,000 dollar number was in your knock down. What's that? It's your knockdown cost, right? Correct. So, if you were to not charge, you would need some of that overhead and staffing um and some other um supplies that we have in the budget, and that brings it down to the $500,000 number. Well, let's go with that swag number then. Um so, I asked uh earlier, a a mill is about $1.7 million. Is that

how much? Seven. 7.4 for for a mill. Okay. Thank you. Uh All right. So So it's $500,000. It would be uh I don't know what percentage that is, but it's pretty low, right? 1% 1% increase in our property taxes to the suck it up cost is 1%. That's what you're saying, right? 10%.

So it' be an 8% tax increase. I'm sorry. I that wasn't the answer I expected, but an 8% tax increase for everybody for the suck it up cost. That's what you're saying. 810 810 of 810 of a mill. 8/10 of a mill. It It sounds so good in my head. I I'm trying to figure this out. So, which is it? What is it?

We're at 4.019, right? There you go. So 8100s of a mill. So that would be uh what like 2% something like that. 2% on the on the millage rate. I'm just trying to get I'm trying to answer that question because it's it's plaguing me too. I want to know what that number is. Yeah. Okay.

Um let let me move on to if you guys think about that and come up with an answer that'd be great. But uh you know we also have as taxpayers we have certainly paid for infrastructure. We're in the business of providing water for instance and providing recreational activities for residents on a usage basis. We pay for those facilities as well. I don't think anybody here would say, "Gee, we should we should provide that for free." And not only for residents, but also for everybody in North Fulton that wants to be in our wreck program. Okay, that's free, too. I mean, of course, we have usagebased uh functions of the city that are designed to cover their own cost and this is one of those.

Correct. That's the point I'm trying to make. And I so I continue to think that you know in terms of like as a parking strategy and what how that shakes out. They like to talk about the fact that it's going to cost more and it's going to impact their business model. But you're also getting 450 450 total spaces in the parking deck is 340. I have to go back and look at the numbers. It's getting late. Hold on. 395. 395. 395. So we're also getting 395 spaces. And you know, everybody who goes to Canton Street pays usually, at least I do. I always pay. And it's usually $10 or $20 depending on what time it is.

And you parked pay to park on Canton Street. So we're talking about $2 an hour, correct? After five:00, correct? Okay. Two to three dollars. Two3. So So this is going to be borne as as council member Bon says by somebody. And it's either going to be an increase in our property taxes of some number that these gentlemen are going to tell us what it would be. Uh or it's going to be the users of those like water, like the trash that's picked up by us and in comp and trucks that we pay for in other ways and those kinds of things. So this is an enterprise approach to doing that. Correct.

And I for one, even as a private citizen, when this was discussed as a bond, felt like it should be a revenue bond and users should pay from for it from the beginning. I've never changed my view on that and I'm not changing it tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Bramley.

Um, thank you everybody for staying here. Um, before I have my comments, um, Mayor, at the appropriate time, I would like to make a motion to pass but with certain conditions. Um I would like to um thank everybody who stayed here, everybody who has sent me an email. Even if you don't get a replies, we read all your emails. We went into social media. We saw we read everything that that you guys send and we are taking into account. We're think we're thinking about the people who don't frequent Cton Street but will bear part of the cost. We're thinking about the employees that have to work and they can't afford to pay, you know, $8 an hour when they make five. We're talking, we're thinking about the businesses who need to keep those employers happy as well. You know, just like we are adding benefits to ours. I'm sure they will like others. So, thank you everybody for it. It is really an very hard decision. made it even harder at least personally for me because I was not involved in any of this planning in any of this activity because I just became part of city council two months ago. Um and and I can tell you for some of the things I disagree and but now we are here to try to find the best solution for everybody. Um, again to remind everybody because we have the many of the comments were about we paid for the bond, why do we have to pay for parking? It's it's disappointing that when the bonds were presented, this specific item was not talked about. Everybody was just star about having a parking deck. People were not stepping back and thinking how are we going to pay for the lights for that building? How are we going to pay for if there's a pothole? How are we going to pay for replacing the roof when it happens? Those questions were not part of the bond. People were just focusing on parking. Well, times has come. We are

now having to talk about this. We can't put it off anymore. Um the and I want to also say, you know, right now what we're planning to do, what we would like to do is have some sort of pilot program on that deck. The decisions that we're not trying to make tonight are going to be permanent. We don't know how a deck will be used in Roswell because we've never had one. Um, so I think, you know, having it as a pilot program that gathers data that can tell us how many people are using it, what are the peak hours, are people really using it, um, who's from out of town and who's from here, who are employers, do we need more parking, parking for employees, can we see movement on businesses wanting to validate parking? all those questions, all those suggestions that you guys have thought, shown us, you know, given us, we we need a way to figure out if they work or not. So, I just want to assure you guys that whatever we're saying today, it will have to move on. It's it's not something that is going to be concrete because we need to study all those things to make sure that it's in the benefit for the most people around here. Maybe we'll find out that, you know, the best thing is to have free parking. Maybe we found out that, well, we're going to close the parking deck forever and we're not going to have parking. That is an option, too. You know, we could just demolish the parking leg and then that way we don't have operating costs on it. Right? I'm going to the extremes, but that's but that's what I'm saying, right? There's it is a joke. It is not a real thing. Please don't take it as a real thing. I'm just trying to

Yes, I know. I'm I'm trying to inject humor is 10:30 10:20 in the morning and and and at night. Um we don't know how many of those 50 50% are from here or from there. And I don't know I mean as a resident would you like to have people from out of town bird get get some of that burden or parking or do you as a resident and as a taxpayer want to give a gift from other people who are coming to us and not pay for parking. Right. So there's there's a lot of things that we have to think about. Um I think one other part of this whole the complexity is that like they mentioned before as by last year up to last year economic development has been the driver behind this instead of being a public service. Parking should not have been part of economic development because we are not in the city is not a business. So we should not have entered the parking business because we don't know how to do that. Private people know how to do that. We are here to give services to the people and and join all our resources so that it can be distributed to everybody. So hopefully um this data will give us some some feedback so that we can prove to you all that you know maybe we need to start looking at all these things as public services instead of you know business generators. Um the other con um comment I had was that um having a a parking management operation is always going to be a loss to the city and and to that I would say you know there's a company called Last Parking there's a company called took there's a company called AAA parking there's a company called Lener parking all those private companies make money so just because you are managing a parking lot doesn't mean that you're automatic going

to lose money there's a ways to make the revenue. Um, and so anyway, that's um, and also the other thing that we have a lot of um, feedback about which we didn't talk and I thought maybe we were going to, was how our sister cities have it figured out. They really haven't figured it out. Once you start really looking into it, you'll start seeing that Alphara, Woodstock, and Sandy Springs are having these same conversations in their city halls. It's it maybe people haven't listened really close when they're talking about the expectations and the difference in their budget. Maybe they haven't talked about about the fact that the agreement they had initially with the Alfera businesses is not is not profitable for the city anymore. But those conversations will will start happening probably after we finish our discussion because they're waiting to listen to what we are going to do because then they're going probably going to have to do something similar. So you know again don't just because you hear that other sisters here haven't please know that they are we are all in the same boat. We're all in the same boat. So, um, no.

Can I Let me Oh, go ahead. And I'd like to make one one last statement and then I'll entertain your motion. And I'd like to make a statement. No, go ahead, Councilman Hall.

Thank Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Brumley, because um the the sister cities as you as you covered is one statement I wanted to make. We do uh this is not unique to us and it's not unique just to our area. It's across the country and uh I was elected in 19 started serving in 20 and we've this parking for many of you uh even much longer. This parking discussion has been going on a long time. Uh we went to the city of Greenville on our retreat in 2022. And it's at that time and with the uh former electeds that um we started to really study and look at parking as a vehicle as a tool that can be used in economic development toolbox. Uh the city of Greenville did use it to revitalize as um council member Philippy um studied a little bit about it. They used it to revitalize their downtown and it was such a successful model that basically the city adopted it. So, we're not necessarily modeling Greenville. This is something that we are adopting as a policy in our uh downtown areas. People will be people will go to our parks and be able to park at our parks, frequent our parks. this is a policy for this area and it is it's it's like a spiderweb. It it's interwoven. So that's why it's important that we look at it holistically as as you said. But um our our our cities around our North Folton cities and even even beyond are having these same discussions and uh trying to figure it out. And that's what we're trying to do. We're not going to make everybody happy. We're making the best decision, the best informed decision as council member uh

Bon uh loves facts and and data and to make decisions based on that and and we've uh digested that for for really a couple of years and um that's that's where we are. Thank you,

Council Member Sal. Uh, I just want to respond to the fact that economic development should not include parking. For 45 years, somebody brought an article in one of our many conversations about parking over the last two years. They brought an article, I think from 1985, Canton Street businesses complaining about no parking on Canton Street. It was a problem. And there were people parked in the in what is now the park, you know, in the grass and all that kind of stuff. This has been a long, long time problem. And if the market was going to solve it, they certainly have had plenty plenty of time to do that. The reason that parking is a part as as we said, we're getting in the parking business. That means we're going to build and manage parking decks because it's necessary to bring economic development to this area. Canton Street is what it is. It can't scale. We're not going to build any more 1840 buildings. So, what do we do? We have to bring in other businesses and the way we do that is we provide infrastructure and parking is one of those things that cities typically do to get that catalyzed and to create the opportunity for new businesses to come. We want to figure out how to do it the most effective way possible for the residents, but the purpose is to bring additional business. And in this case, Green Street was intended to try to pull some of this up Canton Street and over to Green Street. activating Green Street, making it a walkway. I mean, that's why this was done. And so once you once you step into that trap, you're now in the parking business because you've got a parking lot. It has to be maintained. People are going to use it. And I submit to you again, we would not invite all of North Fulton to use our recreational uh programs for free. We wouldn't invite them to tap our water system for free. We we certainly put those things in

place as residents, but they're per use for a reason because we're trying to, for instance, as Jeff talked about on the Friday when we spent three and a half hours on parking the last time we talked about this. If it's free, people will just leave their car there all day over many days, whatever the case may be. So, this is a a logical approach to parking to tie it to usage. Thank you. So one last statement from me and I'll entertain your motion. Um so I I you know appreciate again all the comments from everyone. We we have listened. We are trying to listen. I think you've heard from the dis. We've been asking those questions also but I will also say please also remember um as we're going in we will be looking um reviewing our budget and doing some form of budget readjustments. We um in June July. So again, this may all change, but as we said, May May 6 is when it's I think scheduled to open. So we have to have some form of at least a decision moving forward of some sort of at least pilot model to um get this going because we cannot wait until July and from from what we're moving forward. So, Council Member Brumley, would you like to propose a

uh Yes. motion motion to approve the Green Street deck pilot program and payton street parking only with a commitment to further communicate with the public on the future of the Hillrose and City Hall lots?

Do you want me to read it again? motion to approve the recommendations on the green stick deck as a pilot program and paid Canton Street parking only tonight with a commitment to further communicate with the public on the future of the hills and hill city hill lot city hall lots one point of clarification as a pilot program do you want a time limit on that as a pilot for the data collection before any additional decisions are made or moving forward three months want it to be seasonal.

This is a pilot program. We we look at this data for three months and then we assess if we need to change council be uh understood that it would just be a temporary pilot program, but for example, if we did the three months, it would hit over summer break and so you're not going to get a true reflection of the data. I would say at least recommend I would recommend at least six months just so you have a more vivid picture of the data. Yeah, I agree. Are you willing to go with six months? Yes, ma'am. So, David, could you reread what was the motion that's forward?

Hold on. Let's have discussion on the amendment. The not the discussion I'd like to have is specifically Jeff, what does that mean to Hill Street and other parking decisions that we have to make if we focus? Is this going to be only Green Street? Only Green Street and not the other surface park. So, so not Mimosa, not any of the other, not the Green Street, uh, not the gravel lot, none of those, just Green Street parking deck

and Canton Street. I I have this the slide here that that's might be helpful just from a discussion purposes and I think council sorry to interrupt but council member cells I think is might be asking about the green street gravel lot um and whether or not that's included as part of uh your motion. Oh yeah, it will be both u everything that you have on this on this page, but to move the Hill Rose discussion to another time because we I feel like we as council, we're still not super clear on what the different changes to it was and certainly the public has not uh had a a time to look into that um to get the details on on the different options that we have for that area. I think just this is this this slide what you're talking about

for six months. Councilwoman Hall, thank you. I just have a clarifying question. Um the proposal from staff is uh is there two pages to this? Yes, ma'am. There's a the Hill Rose page is the second page. The second page. Can you go to that, please? And your the the staff request is that we adopt this policy so that you can move forward and make plans.

Correct. So this would help us make the infrastructure decisions that we need to make. Um I will say that um you know we can continue to make certain infrastructure decisions over the course of the next two months um without a formal decision on this screen that's before you. we would need to come back um in short order after we have a conversation with the developer about what our parking strategy is overall to refine any recommendations that you may want to hear. So, we do have some time on the implementation for HillRose. Um but it will need to return here I would say in the next couple of months.

So, um would council member Bremley be opposed to just implementing the policy under a you suggested nine months, I'm sorry, six month pilot. a six-month pilot program or a nine-month pilot program for HillRose. No, not Hillrose. Um, my motion is to not take not voting on this one, but move it to later so we can have more discussion to the public,

but this is a policy and they need to make decisions on how they're going to execute it. I understand, Councilwoman Hall, but um Jeff, if you could reiterate your statement just now that certain decisions on HillRose, while you can still move forward for portions of the policy that we need to move forward one way or the other, that we have approximately two months before we need to come back and make additional policy recommendations on Hill Roads so as to not delay, right,

the development, but still make sound financially sound decisions as we move forward within those two months.

So yeah, let me just I apologize this will be a little bit of a long answer, but the Hill Street deck regardless I think of the policy that I'm hearing and the discussion that I'm hearing today. Um we can make the technology decisions that we need to make on the Hill Street deck based on the conversation without a specific policy adoption from the council. Same for the Hill Street on on street parking. um that is uh basically sign infrastructure. So it it is it can be implemented at any time. The challenge is is what do we do from an infrastructure perspective on the city hall lot and that's really where a lot of the conversation is centering around the um development of the city hall lot and the design is in process. we can work with the developer team um over the course of the next two months to delay certain decisions as it relates to infrastructure, meaning that we could bring the conduit in that we need to bring in, but not necessarily the curbing or the gutters that would necessarily be required here at the at the hill or at the city hall lot. Um those decisions can be delayed by a couple of months as we work through a city hall parking lot strategy in particular. That make sense? So, so my follow-up question to that is what does two months buy you? I mean, what what what are you going to gain in two months if we delay this deci if we make that decision but not make a policy decision?

Sure. I I think what I'm hearing um just in conversations with the council over the last couple of days is a desire for a more intimate understanding with the Hill Street deal structure and how that relates to the city hall parking lot and the cultural arts center parking lot. Um because really what we're talking about is is what policies do we put in place to support the Hill Rose parking plan overall and what I'm hearing from council members is is that they would like some additional clarity beyond what they understand right now so that they could feel comfortable about a decision. Sorry to put words in your mouth, but

So, do we want to re restate the motion or do you want David to uh Can you restate it, please, Mr. Davidson? Because I didn't make notes. Yes, it was to implement the policy recommendations of staff regarding the green street and downtown on street parking as a pilot program for six months from open It's not going to open for 3 months. No, from from open from open from open from open. That is clear. With the commitment to further communicate with the public on the future of Hill Rosen City Hall, Council Member Bas,

I realize I'm the person who made the six month suggestion, but doing the math, um, that would make the six months conclude before the holiday season fully is recognized, and I want that data. Um, so could we just say it would be a pilot program that's initiated only for the year of 2026 with us looking at full or potential implementation as of 2027 moving forward? Is that amanable to council member? Say that again.

Uh, so instead of making it a six-month pilot program because that would be from May to November, you would be missing out on that data for the holidays which is you would want that data. So I would suggest making the pilot program through the end of the year with us to reassess policy moving forward for um December for 2027. Okay. What I understand, what I was trying to um prevent was if we decide to, you know, this will be a paid parking and the residents might want to have a shorter time so that we can really say this is going to be permanent or we're going to change it and it's going to be done by, you know, with the citywide taxpayer fee or whatever. I mean, I can I I can see the three months, I can see the six months, I can see the end of the year, but I'm willing to enter some Well,

I'm willing to entertain motions on this. I support Council Member Bon, Council Member Phelp. Um, not to throw a wrench in the situation, but I really would like to see one more model. And I would like to see a model of the two hours free with um high high fees for um like a a higher rate on event parking. Okay.

Meaning that you don't want to vote for this motion. Okay. You don't have to. So motion on the table right now. I'm going to just say something. What I understand, it sounds as if you've come to an agreement that it would be for a till the end of the year till December 31st, 2026, a pilot program. Of course, that does not mean that we won't be able to look at data before the end of the seven months. Let's all be honest. Um that um as to what is recommended right now on the Green Street property only. Do I have a sec? Is that what I understand?

Green Street downtown. Green Street and downtown on street parking on this screen. On this this screen on the screen up there today. Do I Is that what I'm hearing you? What it say? Is there a second for that? Second. All in favor, raise your hands. So, we have a vote of four. All opposed. Two. So, the motion passes. Y'all want a fivem minute break or not? You guys want to say for the other items? Nobody's saying for the other items.

You should have brought food for us. Now, we have Ethics. I love ethics. Oh, mayor.

And what's second item? No, we they changed it. David said it overrode it. No, she wasn't voting at all. She was changing the motion. She didn't break it in two like they had done the the stretching thing. We just wrote it to this and then we didn't take a vote on your wheels. Okay, five minute break. Set the set the timer because I'm going to ring the bell.

Um, city clerk Long, um, the speaker for item number five has had to step out of the room for a minute, so we're going to go to item number six.

Is she there? Yes. Are are we ready? Yes. Okay. So, this is approval of an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances of the city of Roswell, Georgia by amending chapter 2 administrative administration article 2.5 code of ethics to provide for penalties to provide for codification to provide for se severability to repeal conflicting ordinances to provide an effective date and for other purposes. This is the first reading presented by Joseph Cusack, assistant city attorney. So, city attorney Davidson, please read the ordinance.

Thank you. This is an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances of the city of Roswell, Georgia by amending chapter 2, administration article 2.5, code of ethics to provide for penalties, to provide for codification to provide for several ability to repeal conflicting ordinances, to provide an effective date, and for other purposes. Now therefore, the council of the city of Roswell, Georgia, hereby ordains that the code of ordinances of the city of Roswell, Georgia, chapter 2, administration, article 2.5, code of ethics is repealed in its entirety and replaced to read as follows. The text of which is incorporated herein by reference and if approved, this is the first reading.

Good evening everyone. Um, tonight I bring forward a rewrite or late tonight I bring forward a rewrite of our uh, ethics ordinance. Um, just to start out and give a little background and and I I encourage anyone in the public to go to our uh, YouTube and look at the discussion we had during committee because I think it was a robust uh, and in-depth discussion of our current ethics ordinance and the changes that this ethical ethics ordinance is going to bring. Um, just to outline and and give some sort of high level of how we got here, but uh, late last year, Council Member Bson asked myself and Mr. Davidson if we could look at our current ethic ethics ordinance and compare it to the one John's Creeks had just passed. And John's Creeks was uh took a more apolitical stance than than ours. Um, and so we've we've fashioned our new ethics ordinance, tried to remove politics uh or or political leanings or any sort of political pressure from uh from the from our new ordinance that's in front of us tonight. So, uh just from uh a quick summary, the the main ethics standards or ethics duties you are bound by as council members and members from uh members of our boards are going to be bound by remain effectively the same but will be enhanced a bit. And and what I mean by that is the the current standards that we are bound by as as council members or you are bound by as council members or bound by as board members, those have stayed true throughout most of time. Now what this ethics ordinance does, it expands on certain amount certain um certain portions of that. And and what I mean by that is there in our current ethics ordinance, there's a a provision that doesn't allow you to disclose anything that's in closure. Well, the new ethics ordinance expands on that and doesn't allow anything that's given to you in confidence or any confidential information. You couldn't trade on that confidential information. So, that's

sort of a hole in our current ethics ordinance, but that's getting fixed in this new ethics ordinance. Uh, but mainly from a a process standpoint is where the ethics ordinances are going to to differ. and to go over our current ethics ordinances. Our current ethics ordinance process uh is sort of filled with political landmines, if you will. Uh and and I'll I'll outline the process here and go into why it's a good idea to change that process. So, the current ethics ordinance has started with a complaint that is filed with the mayor or mayor prom. Um and that complaint would be filed with the mayor prom if the mayor was the person who the respondent to that complaint. And then three members of council would be chosen along with the city attorney to determine whether a hearing is warranted in front of the board of ethics. The board of ethics is chosen by the mayor and city council. Um those two appointees by each person. So it's a board of 14 or 14 people can be chosen from for this board. Um so inherently right from the jump you have people on the board of ethics who are sitting in judgment of the people who have appointed them. So right there there's a there's an inherent sort of conflict if you will. Um and the politics are somewhat in injected into this right away from there. And and this is I centered on this in committee but this is where some issues lie with how the board of ethics then goes about its business. The board of ethics then just is chosen. There's uh five members and they get to establish their own rules on how they are going to run their committee. There is no burden of proof they are given for how the ordinance tells them to determine you know what burden of proof you would be governed by. There is no rules of evidence. There is no rules of how a respondent would respond or if they are allowed to stay silent during this proceeding which is actually a a right you have and a due process right that is built in that you

should have during a quasi judicial proceeding like this would be considered. Uh so they can basically just decide what type of rules they want to apply, what type of burden of proof they want to apply and and go from there. And that that creates a big problem because of the findings that they would then give. The findings would then come to you as mayor and council and then you can vote to accept, deny or or tailor those findings uh however they may however you may may choose. Um but there is an appeal right that comes from that as well that goes to the superior court of Fulton County. And if a judge were to review any of these, I guess findings, uh, with no burden of proof established, the due process rights of somebody going through this process have basically been trampled on. A judge is just going to say, "This is thrown out. I I can't make sense of this. This is kind of crazy." Um, and that's that's sort of the what we find ourselves in right now with the way this ethics ordinance that we have is is drafted. Now, the proposed new ethics ordinance makes a little more sense, a little more intuitive, removes some politics from the process because the complaint starting from how a complaint is initiated. The complaints filed with the city clerk. So, right away, it's not filed with the mayor or the mayor prom. It's not filed with an elected official. It's filed with the city clerk like many of our filings are taken in uh currently within the city. The copy would then be furnished to Mr. Nighton. and then the complaint is then served upon the respondent who can then either file a response or choose to stay silent throughout this uh process. Now, here's where the the big difference is going to come is a hearing officer is then chosen if this complaint meets all the criteria that's listed by the ordinance. Uh and that is from five pre-qualified attorneys. These attorneys do not have a practice in Roswell. They do not live in

Roswell. their businesses are not within 10 miles of Roswell and they do not have any sort of business relationship outside of possibly with the city attorney's office. So, it's completely removed. You're taking an attorney who doesn't have any sort of bias, any sort of political, I guess political will or political capital already with the city. You're taking a solely independent party and utilizing them to determine what has occurred here and to make a finding of fact, a finding of the facts with the law and then formulating uh their investigation, have an investigation move forward and then ultimately submitting those findings from that investigation to you as the mayor and council. Um and so their investigation would lead to those findings like I was just speaking of. they come towards come back to you and you can determine whether to accept them, modify them or outright reject them and then they would still have that same appellet right to the Fulton County Superior Court after that. Uh but you're going to have a better standard of review because there's actually a a burden of proof that's listed in the ordinance now, which would be beyond a reasonable doubt. So you have all these things that a judge would be looking for to make sure the process was properly filed protocols properly had a a due process rights of the the accused uh and also a burden of proof of which they would know that they were on notice of of what they would be um having to what burden they would have to meet. So all those things fix these uh various things uh in the new ordinance and I'd be happy to take any questions regarding this ordinance and the changes that are being made and how this is expanding the uh sort of the ethics ordinance and making it stronger. Just one other point that you know again in the discussion that this group of five attorneys that they

would have um or at least those that were chosen would have no relationship um with any of the the the people within council or mayor. That's correct. So again it would be as unbiased un we could get yes there'd be no relationship questions from any council member Brumley. Uh and to clarify that this ethics ordinance covers not just mayor and council but also the members of the commissions that we have. Correct. Correct. Okay. And the rules to the attorneys that can help us with this are also applying to those board members. Correct. Yes.

Okay. Also, I want to just, you know, for point of clarification, one big reason why we want attorneys instead of residents doing it is because a resident if they the investigation is not done with the diligence that it would be that it will need it, there's no consequences for that. Whereas, if we send it out to an attorney, they could be disbarred if they do a bad job or if you know it if something is going wrong there. So that gives a little bit of more weight to whatever investigation, whatever results we're getting for them.

Any other comments? Councilwoman Bon,

just to reiterate what Mr. Kuzzac had said, part of the reason why I wanted to be able to bring this forward is firm believer in referees or players not referee the game. So in this situation, the people who sit on the dis with the exception of staff are the same people who would pick the ethics commission members who would then decide if we acted um with impropriy or if we violated any ethics within the city. So there is an inherent bias within the current form and fashion. Um love having due process over vibes which is what we're moving towards. Um and I also appreciate Mr. Kuzzac's help as well as the legal team for not only going through this process um and examining surrounding cities um but also to call out as well Mr. Kuzzac has extensive experience with the state ethics commission as well. So being able to hold Razle to a higher standard is something that um I very much appreciate and appreciate the help of staff for getting us there. Thank you.

Any other comments? Councilwoman Cells.

Thank you, Mayor. just much to like about this and Joe, your your background is so helpful and appreciate you and Sarah's work on this. A lot of work went into it. Couple things I mean appreciate the call today. We had a good conversation about this that but uh you know I I I am sort of I chuckle uh that uh famous saying from William F.Buckley, I'd rather be governed by the first 450 names in the Boston phone book than by Congress. You know, I'm not so sure that, you know, we're taking this away from our residents completely. I wish there was a role for residents in this in some way. I mean, uh, I think I'd rather be governed by, you know, nine Rozle residents than, uh, five lawyers from out of town. That's that's just I think there should be some consideration of how we can include the residents in this process as we have in the past. It seems you and I talked about this today. I don't think there has been a flood of ethics complaints over the years. Have there been any that you're aware of that? I

think there's Go ahead, David. So, there's been three complaints filed, but none ever made it past the council and myself.

Okay. Gotcha. Well, I know obviously that whole process needs to be rethought. So, I appreciate that and I'm going to vote for this, but I just I do think that we are trying to include residents in these things. I think that's good and we should but this this one is not. So I would I would say that that's a problem. And the second thing is it doesn't you know I've had a number of residents talk to me about an ethics issue which is pack money and I would like to see this include a prohibition against pack money in Roswell elections. So I would I would suggest that we amend this resolution to include that concept. So, I will I will bring my old job into this. Um,

yeah, then we can we can get into all the campaign finance stuff and I'll put everyone to sleep here tonight. Um, but so anything to do with pack money or borrowing pack money, that's going to fall under the sole jurisdiction of the state ethics commission. And I there will be I know the current ordinance we have something about developer money with contributions that they that and and I'm going off the dome here but it's if a de developer has given you campaign contributions in the past then you cannot vote on if they bring a reasonzoning or something forward. Um I I don't know how to fashion that with pack money without infringing on state what the state ethics commission does in regulating political action committee money. Um but this is the first reading so you know open to hearing anything and but it would be very hard.

Council member Zack

sorry uh just a point of clarity. Um, and this maybe just for my understanding when it comes to ethics, it's more of a definition and then an execution of that definition. Correct. It's not necessarily a subjective understanding. And that's my understanding of why having lawyers do it opposed to our um peers makes sense to me because it's really is a a reading of the definition and implying the definition. Is that correct? Yeah, you're you're really it's it's very much applying facts to law, law to facts, and and a lawyer is trained to do that. You know, I was trained to took three years of school for that. But but the these types of cases and and I've I've handled so many ethics cases during my my career at the at the state ethics commission, but it's what I call paper cases. A lot of these are just made on paper trails. Uh that's what like an ethics complaint really is going to take. Like if you vote on something, well, there's going to be a paper trail of you having a substantial business interest in it. And so it's going to be a there's a record of the vote, a record of you being as a part of that business. So these are are very much law and fact cases and weaving those together.

Councilwoman Hall, thank you, Mayor. Not just me.

Wake us up. Apologies. um a as I mentioned in the um committee meeting um and and thank you council member cells for um the pack conversation because I think that's very important if we have the right I if if we write into the ordinance if we can in a way um things that are very clear that would be unethical if a pack donated to um somebody that they that they basically have to recuse or you know not participate in that and and if that exists somewhere else please let us know but before the next reading but I I'm I'm really disappointed that we are pulling our residents out of the process and I'm grateful to council member Bon for looking up Alpharetta um Alpharetta's program has a combination they have they do use uh attorneys but I understand they also uh have a couple of uh residents that they have on that committee. And if we can look into that to see if we could fashion ours um that way, if others are amunable to not completely remove our residents from the process, um right now the residents are the process and um I' I'd like to see our our residents stay involved. And and my other just concern about this and and I recognize we don't get many ethics cases. um three over I don't know how many dozens of years but um the cost I mean this this is an additional cost and and as we discussed in committee I guess it comes out of your budget but ultimately the taxpayers are paying for the cost and and not that we uh want to take advantage of our residents but that is volunteer time and with a clearly

written uh policy and law that you could follow I think residents could interpret it. But I I understand the work that you all did and and and thank you for it. I'm not I'm not saying that. I just would like to keep our residents engaged in some way.

Councilwoman Bon, I again apologize. Now it's an hour later than the last time I apologized. Um I don't know how else to phrase this. No duh. Nobody's ever filed an ethics complaint before because if you take five seconds to read the current ordinance, you'd be like, "Oh, the person that I'm complaining against is either close political allies with the person that I'm complaining about or they have a political vendetta against the person that I'm complaining about." And then it gets referred over to this board that was not publicly appointed. It's like the Skull Society except very less interesting. And I will tell you as someone who's read the list, uh it's comprised of people who are very politically engaged. Anywhere from people who have campaigned and sinewaved for people who sit on the dis at any point in time to relatives of people who sit on the dis at any point in time. Uh there's no recommendations based off our current ethics ordinance as to who can even serve on the ethics commission. So theoretically, it could be the most most ethically heinous person you've ever met in your life. Determining what your reputation is going to be just because you served on a board, commission, or the elected body for the city of Roswell. In this situation, to council member Brumley's point, you're adding skin to the game in the sense that this person can be disbarred if they um acted unethically because people who are barred as attorneys uphold an ethics requirement as part of their profession. Our ethics commission is not all hell to anything. Again, vibes. I'm here because it seemed cool. I get to waggle my fingers in this secret room. Nobody knows. And so I understand that in the 30 some odd years, bless you, uh, Mr. Davidson, for

only 26.

26. I'm sorry. It probably feels like 30 after this meeting, uh, after serving for 26 years in this city that you would not see anything brought forward because common sense would dictate that it would go a whole lot out of nowhere. So I think that is inherent or indicative of the fact that the process is messed up if you don't even have in 30 years nobody's violated ethics be real. So thanks my one clap slow clap one clap u. So I just want to say I appreciate the tightening up. I understand incorporating residents within all aspects of our city. That's what boarding commissions are inherently for. They hold public meetings because they represent the public. These ethics commission meetings are not publicly held meetings when they are convened, when they are appointed, or even when they determine if there's grounds or standing for the case. This changes that and brings transparency and light of day to a process that should ethically speaking have light of day to it. Thank you. Any other comments? City Clerk Long, are there are there any interested parties who want to speak to this topic?

Yes, there are two um speakers. Allison Brolick.

I know. That's why I allow me to geek out a little bit here. Um I'm surprised I'm not the only one speaking that there's another fellow geek. Um, good evening. Good evening, whatever time it is. Um, I'm Allison Brolith. Most of you know me. I'm an almost 30-year resident of Roswell, former member of the planning commission, local attorney, and am currently in my second stint in the pool of 14 residents, from which a board of ethics would be drawn if an ethics complaint ever made it past the gatekeeper, as called for in our current ethics code. And as you all know, and we've discussed, no complaint ever makes it past the gatekeeper. And I'm a little offended at your characterizations, but I'll I'm going to let that slide. Um,

quick full disclosure, she was my appointment to the ethics commission. So, yes.

So, during my first stint in the pool of 14, it's about 20 years ago, um, I took my first look at our ethics code and frankly was a gasast at what I saw. a system by which the fox watches the hen house. And then in the unlikely event that a complaint ever makes it past the gatekeeper, five citizens would be selected from a pool of 14 residents that have been handpicked by the mayor and council members to first make up its own rules about how it's going to proceed in that case and then conduct an investigation and hold hearings. And I have to put that in quote as an attorney because they're nothing legal really about their hearings. um all by lay people who have relationships with the elected officials who put them there and would most likely be the subject of the very ethics complaint that they were charged with passing judgment on. Um honestly reading our code made my lawyer head spin. certainly reads like it was draft to drafted to check a box because of course our city had to have an ethics code but also with the intention that an ethics complaint never had the a chance to actually be considered on its merits. So at that point since it's 20 years ago now in the making I made it my mission to quietly plant seeds in heads and to push to get our ethics code reformed. Now 20 years later here we finally are. Um, I nearly hugged you at um the committee meeting embarrassingly, but um I was so excited when I saw it on the agenda um of that committee meeting the other week. Um and there is finally recognition that our ethics code has been a joke. Um and we've skillfully drafted this new code of ethics for which I cannot commend you enough. Um I I want to throw in there my opinion which is now not written but about

having non lawyers um having any kind of role in this and I think that it would be a wrong move to go in that direction different than the reasons that have already been given having attorneys and I'm just saying this because I'm an attorney but having an attorneys attorney serve in this role attorneys that have no connection to this city give the appearance of complete complete disinterested parties passing on these issues and these ethics complaints. If you have any citizens on that panel, there is no way that you can say a citizen is complete completely disinterested. They vote, they come and speak. things that you guys do and that the boards and commissions do impact all residents and for that reason alone residents should not be part of this whole process. It should be completely completely disinterested parties. So, we need this new ethics code to promote public trust, to prevent corruption and misuse of power, to provide a framework of accountability, and to ensure that our city officials act fairly, transparently, and in the best interest of the residents and businesses of Roswell. So, I strongly urge you to vote in support of adoption of this new code of ethics that is proposed tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker. Frederick Geno.

Good evening. Good evening.

My name is Frederick Guo. I'm a resident Roswell. So, uh, the presentation by councelor Kusak was helpful in uh, to frame the context of this new ordinance. What I'm here to talk about is more a few technical issues that uh, I came across as I was reading the document. Um and in particular the fact that the current ordinance has chapter 2.5.11 that talks about penalties but in spite of the fact that your reference to penalties is included in the title of this new ordinance there is no chapter related to penalties. So no penalties for code of ethics violations. Um the second issue is the definition of family member. It excludes domestic partners, stepchildren, grandparents and grandchildren. And perhaps it would be good to have a little bit broader um expansion of the definition of family members in the text of the ordinance. Uh it makes one reference to family members as it is defined in the first chapter of definitions and throughout the documents it refers to immediate family member which is not defined and therefore it creates a little bit of ambiguity in the ordinance and ambiguity is just not good to have. Um to a point uh made by councilwoman B there is no anti- retaliation protection for the public uh complaintant and for civilian witnesses. So uh I think this is something that perhaps this audience should incorporate. Um there is a vote that is required prior sorry there is a disclosure that is required prior to a um a vote that refers to the uh that refers to being part of a board

of a nonprofit organization or a board and I wonder why it has to be done just prior to the vote rather than having an annual disclosure that would encompass all sorts of um board members ships and whatnot. So, it would be a lot easier to have that rather than having it disclosure done before a vote and sometimes being forgotten. Uh there is the hearing officer disqualification criteria uh is not incorporated and perhaps we should have something that provides for the conditions under which uh uh a hearing officer could be disqualified. And there is no procedure in this text to challenge, recuse or replace a hearing officer after it's been after he or she has been appointed. Uh and I think also this is something that should be incorporated to allow for um first better transparency and better management of the process. Um lastly or actually uh penultimate there is no provision uh for an interim recusal of a member which is either mayor council member or um member of a commission uh when a complaint is pending against uh he or him she or him she him or her sorry. Uh so I think again those are some technical issues that I thought of that perhaps would be good to have. And then finally to a point that was made also by um by councilwoman Bon um there is no sanction for frivolous or or bad faith complaint and you were talking about the cost the cost which is borne by the citizens anyway because it's part of the budget but I think that uh to the extent that the ordinance would uh put the burden of cost onto the complainant if that complainant turns out to be frivolous

would discourage this this sort of behavior. Um, and I think that it would make sense to incorporate that as well. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other speakers?

David Woodro. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, appreciate the opportunity to talk. And straight up, uh, I want to apologize because I really hoped when I came down here that I would actually see what the amendments were going to be on the ordinance. I'm actually on the ethics uh, pool. Uh, I'm one of those 14 names that's in there. And um so I wish I was better informed, but I would love to see exactly what those amendments are. When I was appointed or um asked to serve on the ethics uh in the ethics pool, um I read everything I could u what the ordinance currently looked like and uh I expressed uh to a number of people that I felt like it was lacking. Um there was no training per se. Um there was no organizational meeting. Um and uh so I was hoping that maybe this would be the start of that. I'm certainly not opposed to uh five attorneys, four attorneys, three attorneys. um being on this uh the ethics committee although many times as I read in the newspaper the ethics issues we have are with attorneys with all due respect um Mr. Davidson as well. Um, so what I would like to see is what are these changes? I think there should be things in there providing for penalties. Um, I would hate to think that anyone who has been appointed

um or asked to serve in this pool would be the type of person that would absolutely be unethical themselves. And I kind of heard a an inference to that and I hope that's not the case and as a change because I do believe that there should be some citizen involvement in this um that if there is in fact an ethics complaint that is lodged against someone sitting on this deis that if that particular council person, mayor, what have you. Um, the two people that they ask to be in the pool, I think those names could be pulled out of the pool and um would uh remove that potential um uh stumbling block or that question of impropriety. So, again, I wish that uh is this available? Can I Is it? It's part of the agenda packet.

Tell me where it is and I'll I'll look it up. Look in the agenda packet. Great. If you send an a message to Roswell Mayor and Council um an email, we can send it to you.

I'll do that and I appreciate it. Um I'm an old retired dude now, so I got a lot more time on my hands to to read these things and I appreciate you all continuing to work in driving the economy. Um I'm I'm I'm thankful for that. So again, those are my u quick comments. I think citizen involvement should still be should be there. Um I would again hate to think that there is in uh there's a um a feeling of impropriety uh because someone was appointed or asked to serve. Um, I'd like to think that we have people on that in that pool that are engaged that have maybe worked in a campaign. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Um, maybe they know a little bit more about what's going on than somebody who has no has no interest in what's been going on in the city. So, this definitely needs to be cleaned up. Uh, that's why I came down here tonight. It was an interesting conversation on parking. I'm glad I could be here for that. Um I wish I could have moved this up on the agenda, but u again thank you for uh the opportunity to speak. I'll send the email. I'll be looking for that. And um again, I would urge you uh bring in some outside counsel. Makes sense to me. Uh let's codify what the penalties are. And uh you say 26 years, I've been here almost 35 years. You know, I'll be honest with you. I really have not seen or heard of any unethical behavior. Now, we've had council people, mayors that haven't been popular, but I haven't seen any of them, frankly, in my opinion, that have been in unethical. And uh that's another great reason to live here in Roswell. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Woodrow. Just clarification, did you want a redline copy of the ordinance? say it's a complete I'm sorry. You want a redline copy of the ordinance? Complete rewrite. Complete. Okay. All right. We'll get you the clean version. It's a complete rewrite. Yeah. And and just to

it would be interesting to see what got redlined out or redacted, but no, I'd rather have the clean version. And just to clarify too on the the penalties are codified in here and the penalties are uh you get a public or private reprimand or censure by the city council, a request for resignation from the city council or removal from office in accordance with all applicable state and local laws. That's that's the nuclear option. The governor would appoint a three-person panel. If you're ever convicted of a felony or charged with a felony, you can't discharge your duties. That's that's what that provision is. But the other two, those are the penalties in here because there's no fine mechanism. But there are penalties in here and those are the penalties as listed. Thank you.

Any other speakers? Yes. Courtney Roger.

Hi. I just wanted to real quick um take the opportunity. Um Allan had mentioned uh the pack item and something that um had come to my mind as a possibility um when thinking about it previously is that um perhaps I'm assuming that during RFQ type processes and that there's also a process for when items come up for agenda that there would be opportunities for such disclosures. Um it would be on a volunteer basis. Um, I know through the work that I do, I often have to um fill out uh conflicts of interest um forms when we submit um I work at insurance and so when we're submitting to different governments and things like that, we have to fill out those types of forms. It is voluntary and but and it does have to be signed by executives, but um that could be a potential um solution if it's not something that could be codified. Thank you. Any other speakers? No. Do the council have any other comments or questions regarding this item? Councilwoman Bon

uh wanted to address some of the comments. Um there was a comment about disclosures about and incorporating a process to require elected officials to have to disclose um fiduciary positions. That's already a requirement. Um if you go to our disclosure website for the city of Roswell, I know it's confusing because the state of Georgia does a completely separate one. City of Roswell under the voting section um look for personal financial disclosures. Every year we are required by law to submit our fiduciary positions with companies ownership and companies um any state contracts that we have board positions including nonprofits if we oversee fiduciary positions. Am I missing anything in that? So we do disclose our financial obligations but it is incumbent upon ourselves u prior to a vote to disclose any um personal financial interest. Um, for example, there was a case might still be pending um in Milton where a council member um voted on an item that had to do with his homeowners association, which he's active in. Um, and that's led to a court case. Um, so that's something that you wouldn't personally financially disclose. Um, but it would be on your address or you would have to disclose it recuse. Um, I do love the idea of penalties for frivolous complaints. Um, I wanted to ask Mr. QAC. Is there an established process for something like that? At the state level,

there is. Uh there was by rule the adoption of the attorney's fees option. Uh if a frivolous complaint came through where the complainant known or knew or should have known that the allegations they were making were were false, then the respondent, if if they had any attorney's fees, could meet a a burden. uh they could submit for attorney's fees and then ultimately the commission rules on whether or not attorney's fees are appropriate taking the facts and circumstances surrounding the submission and uh assuming that they they find that the the filing was frivolous they would award reasonable attorney's fees under that situation.

So in this case would we would need to revise our ordinance to incorporate that language or is that an already inherent in state law? Yeah, we can I can insert some language in there. I have a I wrote the rule at the state ethics commission for this so I could just use the same thing.

Got it. Appreciate it. Um and then lastly uh with a comment on um the Roswell residents being able to serve um as a position on this um on the board of eth or the ethics commission. Um I totally understand wanting to prioritize having folks who are more politically engaged or may follow the bouncing ball. um they've already had the opportunity to decide if they like that person or not, whether they voted for or against them. They're inherently judging them with their vote. Um in the in the judicial process, and I am not an attorney, but I believe there's vorier, which you could determine who is going to be on your jury and who's going to determine your case and if you're going to be inherently biased. So, if you ever go to jury duty, they ask you 9,000 questions to see if you are an biased jury member. in the process that we currently have, nor is there any resident process that would be able to eliminate that bias without extensive questioning to determine if they are going to be biased. I'd prefer personally as someone who might be judged on my actions. I don't want the person judging me to know me from Adam's house cat. They should not know who I am. They should be judging me purely on my actions and whether or not I'm at fault, not my entire political history. Um, and I would assume others on the DAS may feel the same. Um, but I do appreciate the contributions of those who have served on the ethics commission. I wanted to look at you and give you eye contact. Uh, as Miss Rolick had said, she is also my appointment to the ethics commission as I believe her to be ethically a high person, but also an attorney and would be able to interpret that. I'm sure whoever selected you also selected you because of your high ethics and your common sense and the fact that your first instinct was to dig into the ordinance itself to apply it. Unfortunately, there's not a rule that says that that should be the golden rule for everybody who's appointed. So, I'm just trying to make sure that we're solving for um uh potential impropriety moving forward.

And that's not only for people who serve on the ethics commission, but also for us as well. Thank you. Any other comments? Do I hear a motion? Council Council, do I have a second? Go ahead. read. All right. Uh motion to approve an ordinance to amend the code of ordinances of the city of Roswell, Georgia by amending chapter 2 administration article 2.5 code of ethics to provide for penalties, to provide for codification, to provide for severability, to repeal conflicting ordinances, to provide an effective date and for other purposes. This is the first reading.

Do I have a second? Council Councilman Sack. All in favor, please raise your hand. opposed. So, I'd just like to make a comment. I'm not going to support this tonight, but I would like to dig into um the resident input the way Alfreda does it and we can discuss it at the second reading.

So, we'll now go back to um item number five. Uh city clerk Long, would you read the fifth item on the agenda? Approval of a resolution of the mayor and council of the city of Roswell to approve the bond resolution of the Roswell Public Facilities Authority authorizing the issuance of the RPFA revenue bond series 2026 and authorized execution of an intergovernmental agreement between the city and the RPFA. This will be presented by chief financial officer Bill God. Mr. Got y'all.

It may take that long to get the technology to work. Can someone help with the technology quickly? Please assist Mr. Gill, please. It's tired. just

I am sorry I was not able to keep my time slot earlier. Uh thank you for your accommodation and patience. Uh tonight I want to bring forward uh the uh resolution to approve the PFA bond issuance for 2026. Uh we will cover briefly um what is the uh the PFA um what is the city of Roswell public uh facilities authority what are the benefits of a PFA offering and then we'll talk about the bids um and the recommendations and also um a quick summary of what came out of the PFA meeting earlier today at 5 pm which feels like about a half day ago pretty much. So, um, the the public facilities authority issues revenue bonds um and pursuant to the Georgia revenue law. So, there's been some discussions about uh what does what does a revenue bond mean as it relates to the public facilities authority and the city of Roswell. And in essence, in order to issue the bonds for the PFA, we have to use a Georgia revenue law. Um that law requires a revenue source to repay the the bonds that are issued out of the PFA. Um and as a u result of that the PFA and the city enter into what's called an intergovernmental agency agreement or lease in essence uh to facilitate a fund of flows from the city to the PFA uh to repay the bonds. The lease structure is scheduled to match the payment terms of the bond. So that the debt services uh from the from the PFA to the to the bond lender is the same as the the lease service. Um one thing that you can look at in in borrowing on the PFA um it's a it's a little bit quicker process. Um we'll talk a little bit about the court validation in a second which gives a

little bit more security to the bond issuer. Um but it allows us to borrow uh smaller amounts than you would under a geo bond. Um, I heard some reference to a house earlier today. It's the one I like to use. You know, you buy a house and you want to make some improvements. You have your your home mortgage loan for 30 years on it. Uh, but you're not necessarily tearing the house down, rebuilding it. You're you're making improvements to uh foundational issues associated with the house, appliances, air conditioning, so forth. And you would borrow a home equity loan. And it would be a shorter period of time. Um, generally a smaller amount of funds that it would take to borrow the house. And that's why you would typically want to move quicker on that and then then the longer underwriting process that goes into a mortgage. And it's sort of the same analogy under the PFA. It's it is not a shortcut to the geo bonds. Uh it still goes through open meetings, still goes through public records access, still goes through open council meetings. Um but it allows us to move a little bit quicker and in most cases achieve lower cost uh financing uh for for capital projects. Another aspect that's important under the Georgia revenue law is called the court validation process and where the Georgia law requires a judicial validation of those bonds. So in essence um we sue ourselves in superior court. So David always likes to kind of give a nod. Um and and what we're asking a judge to do is to look at our our self challenge of the bond and rule that the bond complies with the Georgia revenue law. And then that allows the bank or issuer to know that that bond's been declared legal and it can't be challenged. And because of that, we can save one, two, three, five basis points depending on on the interest rate environment. But it does reduce some risk to the bond issuer uh or the winning bank in the process. So how does our offering work um here uh

in Roswell? Um we met as a committee on February 10th. Um and we go to the committee to present a draft of the IGA, discuss the offering process, the projects that would be included under those projects. Um then the uh the bids are actually if the committee approves moving forward, the bids are submitted. Um we bring the bids back, evaluate them at staff level. Um, and then we present uh to the PFA at a meeting that's been convened and noticed uh in accordance with state and city law and a charter. Sorry, Alan. I know you've been through this. You've been through it a couple of times. Um, so, you know, again, we talked about what it would be used for. Any city assets, uh, parks, public safety, utilities, city buildings, um, you know, anything inside a city hall would be eligible. It's important to understand that while the PFA is the conduit to the borrowing, the city maintains title and ownership of all the assets that are financed through the PFA. So again, it's it's it's a it's a conduit borrowing in in uh in essence. U in this case, the bid process, um we met with the committee on February 10th. You approved moving forward uh with the bid process. So we issued RFPs to approximately 40 banks and lenders on February 11th. Um, we received bids and evaluated those bids on March 3rd. Um, nine unique banks submitted responses. I'm sorry, nine bank submitted responses with 17 unique offers. Uh, one bank submitted three offers. Several banks submitted two offers. The offers varied on different things such as rate versus prepayment terms uh, versus term of the loan. uh in evaluating those 17 uh unique bids, the the screening criteria that we used was the interest rate, the prepayment provisions and the total dollar amount of annual debt service because that has to come out of general fund and that's a budgetary

consideration. So I I want to use the cash flow versus balance sheet versus the so-called income statement which is basically our cash flow statement here. Um so we will vote tonight. So PFA has uh voted to recommend um approval of the IGA and we're bringing that recommendation forward so that you can recommend as council to prove what you recommended earlier at 5:00. Um if approved, we will then proceed to validation. Uh that's about a 30-day process all said and done. And if everything works out as tu uh as expected uh based on approval validation we would be funding uh somewhere around April 9th probably somewhere two to three days before or after that that day. Some of the items that uh we uh have proposed be included in the project list. Um the big one is this the roof at city hall. Um, we've also, um, we've recently upgraded our HVAC system at city hall and hope that we could back, uh, be backwards compatible with the controls that run that HVAC system. Um, we've done our best. I know our facilities people have done their best, but we we need to upgrade those controls to truly take advantage of the HVAC system. Uh, we're looking at a roof replacement at Bington Hall. We wouldn't do that until towards the end of the year. Um, from a usage perspective and timing perspective out at Bington. um public safety headquarters. We're adding some improvements that were not originally foreseen in the bond uh request in 2022 that was talked about earlier. Um another important public safety attribute is the fire engines. Our fire department uh likes to keep two engines fully operational in reserve. In case of one of them goes out, they can pull it from the apparatus, replace it, and keep that apparatus in service the amount of time it takes to replace the engine. If an engine blows and we do not have a replacement engine, it could take up to six to eight months even with top

dollar and premiums and everything else paid. So, this allows us to keep uh an apparatus rolling regardless of the status of engine. Um, we've typically had two engines in reserve. This would allow us to rebuild both of our engines. Currently, we have no no engines in reserve right now. Um, in 911, we are adding $500,000 to revitalize the range. that will also take place towards the end of the year as the rest of the work is done over there. Um, but the range was not originally included in the original bond scope. Um, parking deck improvements. I know we don't want to talk too much more about this, but we do need the technology in the building, particularly with the pilot program having been approved as it was earlier tonight. This will allow us to collect that data that uh will allow us to better understand the dynamics of parking and and what kind of impact that's having on the city budget. Um in Crab Apple, we are uh expanding, let me get this straight, we are moving dance um out of Crab Apple into its own facility. And then we're going to bring in um gymnastics and we have to redo the floor, expand the center. These expansions will also allow other types of needs to be addressed at the Crab Apple Center such as the adapted program that you heard earlier on the RFP at committee. Um and then the last is a vehicle lift um to maintain uh maintenance operations over fleets. The total bond offering was set at 13.4 million when we did the offering. The projects total 13.1. We had budgeted $300,000 in offering costs, but um when we did the final tally on the bids, we come out to about $125,000. So what will happen is the additional 175,000 will roll into project costs and we'll use those on other projects um as

necessary. So think of it like a small little contingency um bonus. the um so as we went through the process I showed you the factors like I said we came up with three bonds that kind of met the criteria for final evaluation um the first was from JP Morgan and it was a 15-year bond at 3.61% with a $1,172,000 uh debt service uh amount each year to come out of the general fund and it allowed for no prepayment penalty. Um the technical language was we would have to pay a a makehole premium for whatever the difference was if we try to prepay. So that would in essence leave us with the same rate if we refinanced. So that was basically no prepayment option available whatsoever. Um the best prepayment option rate that we had was regions at 15 years and that was 3.63 were debt service of 1,ion174. Uh but that still didn't allow prepayment until year 9. uh but that did not carry any penalties uh with the prepayment and there was no scaling of prepayment options before year nine. It was a you're available year nine and then you can available each year thereafter. Uh the third offer that we looked at was from Webster Bank um as a as a memory jogger. Webster also financed our PFA offering in 2025 to acquire the Spruel property um that we closed on in September. Um that bond offering um was also a the selected offering for that was also a 20-year rate. Um they came in at 4.18% which looks higher. Well, it is higher. Um but from a debt service perspective combined with the the timing it will be approximately $173,000 less in annual payments, which takes pressure off of the general fund to allow us to do some other things um that we may want to do with general fund monies. Uh we also have scaled

prepayment penalties that begin in four years at 2%, six years at 1% and then no penalty at at eight years or one year earlier than the uh the regions. Uh so the recommendation that we made to the PFA earlier that was accepted is to accept the Webster um bid. So that's the recommendation. We uh recommend the Webster proposal. Uh it balances rate, term, and annual debt service requirements. Um included with this recommendation would be the city side of approval for the IGA lease which was approved earlier at PFA. Um to and and this would match I mentioned this at PFA. The the lease payments would match the debt service. There would not be any difference between the the terms over the 20-year period of the of the lease arrangement. And if the debt retires early, then the lease retires with it. I'm happy to take any questions.

Any questions from council?

Councilwoman Brumley. It's not not a question. I think um this is very clear. Just a clarification for anybody who's listening out there. Um because the first time I heard it, revenue bond, it is not a revenue bond. I don't know why they named it this way. It's by law it has to be named that, but it's basically a loan like a home equity loan. So, I know when we every time we say revenue, we're like, "Oh my gosh, we're going to have to like charge or do things, you know, to to pay it." But no, in this case, it's just a name, but that's not what it is. It's basically a home equity loan that we're paying so we can fix the roof. Thank you.

Any other comments? Are there any residents or interested parties who would like to speak?

Um, I have one speaker, Jason Yao, if he is still here. I just hate it when this city spends money like drunken sailors. So yeah, revenue bond, it's a general obligation bond masquerading as a revenue bond. It should be put to a public vote just like the whole big bond issue. Um the roof replacement for $7 million. Are we are we gold leafing the dome on the building? Because that's a lot of money. You could for $7 million you could build a 20,000 square foot office building brand new from the ground up. But 7 million for the roof, it can't be repaired. It's not getting gold leafed. It's just mind-boggling to me. Public safety headquarters improvements. You know, if you hadn't bought that shooting range for $6 million and put another $4 million into putting the 911 center into it, guess what? You'd have money left over here. Parking deck improvements. This thing is so overbudget. I can't even begin to believe it. Um $15 million just for the construction. What are we 10 million for the for the land acquisition and the and the renovation to the uh uh Masonic lodge and now another another million $200,000. I mean, how do you do this? You could have put a automated parking garage on land you

already owned on Mimosa and you'd be ahead of the game. Uh, fire engine refurbishment. Oh, city hall HVAC improvements. Did I just hear we just got a brand new HVAC system and it didn't come with controls? Oh my god, who buys stuff in this city? Uh, city uh the uh fire engine refurbishment. Uh, you know, you could put you you should have had money from the public safety bond. Oh, but oh wait, we bought uh a shooting range. Uh, crab apple expansion and physical activity center. Oh, yeah. For the building you bought for $6.5 million, you should have bought for a dollar from Fulton County. And uh I thought we just approved a million dollars to renovate the building after we approved $2 million to put a new roof on. Um and a mill where does it end? Oh, and then of course we've got the 911 center range revitalization. Oh, more money for the shooting range. Seriously? I mean, I can we not go get Peter Saroff and hand shaking the money back out of his his pockets? Um, vehicle lifts for fleet shop. You know, you can go on Amazon, you can get vehicle lifts for about $3,000 a piece. But how many of these are you buying for $115,000? And then $60,000 for Bington Hall roof

replacement. I got a bigger roof than Bington Hall. It doesn't cost $60,000 to replace. Seriously, I just who who is spending the money like this? I know an awful lot was spent by the fool who preceded you, Mary, and unfortunately you guys have to clean it up. But three of you approved all this crap, set the table, and now the other people have to clean it up. I I just am so tired of watching a city spend money irresponsibly like drunken sailors. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other speakers? There are no other speakers. Okay. Does council have any other comments or questions regarding this item? Do I hear a motion? read it.

Council L. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to uh to approve a resolution of the mayor and city council of Roswell to approve a bond resolution uh to approve the bond resolution of the Roswell Public Facilities Authority authorizing the issuance of the RPFA revenue bond series 2026 and authorize the execution of an intergovernmental agreement between the city and the RPFA. Do I have a second? I just want to leave.

Councilwoman B. All in favor, please raise your hands. Vote is unanimous. Next on tonight's agenda is the city attorney's report. City attorney David Davidson, please read the item. Thank you, Mayor. This is a recommendation to go into closure at 5:30 on Monday, March 23rd, 2026 to discuss personnel litigation andor real estate. Do I hear a motion? Councilwoman Bon, do I have a second? Council member cells. All in favor, please raise your hands. Vote passes unanimous. Last is an addendum to this agenda. We're not done yet.

Sorry. City clerk Long, please read the item. Uh this is adoption of a resolution to support the memorandum of understanding between the city of Roswell, Georgia and Sunb Belt Office One LLC presented by Jeff Leatherman, deputy city administrator. Jeff, please. Thank you. In your packet, you have a resolution and from our economic development team, we are recommending that the mayor and council adopt this resolution. What it does is it continues a project that we've been working on for the past year. Um and this council has the opportunity to demonstrate to the property owners as well as to the potential future developers that we're continuing to support um the work that has been done over the course of the past I said year really couple of months as you think about December 2000 or December 18th 2025 is when anou was adopted by the council. Um we've been working through the redevelopment of the project itself. Um, as many of you know, through our briefings, we've had uh some questions from the development team on whether or not we are continuing to move forward on our economic development strategy. And this resolution signals to the pre property owners and to the developers that we true are in fact moving forward on our economic development strategy as defined in the originalou. And this council is at adopting the resolution that supports theou from December 18th, 2025. Be happy to answer any questions. I know it's late and we're ready to go home.

Any council member have a question? Any comments from interested parties? Speakers. Speakers. Comment. Do I hear a motion? Councilwoman Brumley, would you please read your motion? Motion to approve the adoption of a resolution to support a memorandum of understanding between the city of Rosel, Georgia and Sunb Belt Office LLC. Do I have a second?

Council was he had his hand. All in favor, please raise your hand. Passes unanimously. Being that there are no other items, this mayor and council meeting on Monday, March 9th, 2026 is adjourned.