City Council - Special Meeting

Time for convening has arrived. We'll start this evening series of meetings with the first with the Public Facilities Authority. I'd like to call this meeting of the Public Facilities Authority of Sandy Springs to order for Tuesday, May the 19th, 2026. Will the Secretary please make the announcements and call the roll?

Good evening. First, just a reminder to those in attendance, please silence all cell phones and other electronic devices at this time. As I call roll, please confirm your attendance. Chair Rusty Paul.

Present.

Member John Paulson.

Here.

Member Melody Kelly. She's joining us this evening on Zoom. We're looking to get her moved over to the panelists now.

I'm present.

Perfect. Member Melissa Mueller. Here. Member Frank Roberts.

Here.

Member Mary Ford. Here. Member Andrew Chensky.

Here. Is there a motion to approve the meeting agenda? Chairman Paul, I move approval of a meeting agenda for Tuesday, May 19, 2026. We have a motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Roberts, that we approve the meeting agenda. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on approval of the meeting agenda. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The agenda is approved. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes? Chairman Paul.

Mr. Paulson. I move approval of the meeting minutes from March 17, 2026.

Motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Mr. Chinsky. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on approval of the minutes. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Minutes are approved. Moving into business. Secretary, please read the first item.

This is PFA 202604, consideration of a resolution to appoint officers of the City of Sandy Springs Public Facilities Authority and to confirm and ratify all prior actions of the authority and for other purposes.

Do we have a motion?

Chairman Paul. Ms. Mueller. I move that we approve item number PFA 2026-04, approval of a resolution to appoint officers of the City of Sandy Springs Public Facilities Authority to confirm and ratify all prior actions of the authority and for other purposes, and to appoint Board Member John Paulson as the Vice Chair.

We have a motion by Ms. Mueller. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion by Ms. Mueller, seconded by Ms. Ford. That we approve agenda item 202604 resolution appointing officers to the city of Sandy Springs public facilities authority confirming and ratifying all prior actions of the authority for other purposes and nominating Mr. John Paulson as the vice chair of the authority. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question's on agenda item PFA 202604, the resolution appointing officers of the City of Sandy Springs Public Facilities Authority. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. Secretary, please read the next item.

This is PFA 202605, consideration of a resolution to approve the FY2026 budget amendment to update refunding proceeds and bond debt services budgets. Presented by Treasurer Tony Carlisle. Ms. Carlisle.

Members of the PFA. This budget amendment is presented to update refunding proceeds and bond debt service budgets. This budget amendment is comprised of a number of components, and I'll provide a description of each and make a strong attempt to bring the pieces together for a simple understanding of this budget amendment. In September 2020, we participated in refunding of our series 2015 debt which was issued for City Hall and the Performing Arts Center. The debt refunding would yield savings over the life of the loan in the amount of $16,674,801. The refunding created series 2020 bonds. In March 2025, we received notification from Hilltop Securities of an opportunity to restructure the series 2020 debt to recognize an estimated savings of about $1.4 million by executing a security substitution for the outstanding escrow. This substitution was included in the FY26 budget in the amount of $1.4 million to reduce the general fund transfer needed to fund debt service of the series 2025 bonds. In September 2025, we embarked on the restructuring process but only received $980,460 savings, leaving the funding short by $419,540. Also in September 2025, we issued new debt for the purpose of building new fire stations 1 and 4 and the addition of fire station number 3 in the amount of $50 million. Series 2025 debt was created with a budgeted debt service payment of $3,078,478. However, the invoiced amount was only $2,935,200. leaving a budget balance to the good of $143,278. November 2025, we received a settlement from Rosser for its professional negligence and material breach of the agreement in the amount of $900,000. Because the project for which these funds apply is closed, the funds are currently held in a PFA contingency GL account for future allocation. In summary, this budget amendment is requesting the net of the budget shortfall for the restructuring of $419,540 and the excess budget for the new debt or Series 2025 of $143,278 in the amount of $276,262 be allocated from the $900,000 contingency. The balance of the settlement contingency will be $623,000 $738 if this budget amendment is approved. Not approving this funding from the contingency will require a transfer from the general fund.

All right, you've heard the report of the treasurer. What's the desire of the authority?

Chairman Paul. Mr. Paulson. I move approval of agenda item PFA 20-2604, resolution to, I'm sorry, 20-2605, resolution to approve fiscal 2026 budget amendment to update refunding proceeds and bond debt service budgets as described by Tony Carlisle.

I have a motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Roberts. That we approve agenda item 2026.05, a resolution approving FY 2026 budget amendment to update refunding proceeds and bond debt service budget. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on agenda item 2026.05, the resolution approving the FYE 2026 budget amendment. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. The secretary will please read the next item.

This is agenda item number PFA 202606, consideration of a resolution to approve the FY26 budget amendment to increase PFA overflow parking project cost budget. Presented by Treasurer Tony Carlisle. Ms. Carlisle.

If you all remember, in June 2025, the PFA approved an MOU with Trammell Crow to construct 111 parking spaces at a cost of $4,877,333. We funded the new project by reallocating the unused funds of Project PF8, Georgia Commission on the Holocaust, in the amount of $4.4 million. This project is still underfunded by $477,333. We requested to utilize $477,333 of the remaining PFA contingency to fully fund this project. The contingency balance would be $146,405 if approved. Not approving this funding from the contingency would require revisiting the request to determine the method to fully fund the project.

You've heard the report of the treasurer. What's the desire of the authority?

Chairman Paul. Mr. Paulson. I move approval of agenda item 202606, consideration of resolution to approve the fiscal year 2026 budget amendment to increase PFA overflow parking project cost budget.

A motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Chinsky, that we approve agenda item 202606, A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE FYE 2026 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE PFA OVERFLOW PARKING PROJECT COST BUDGET. ANY DISCUSSION?

MR. CHINSKY. JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR WHY IT WASN'T FULLY FUNDED INITIALLY?

WE WERE JUST USING THE FUNDS THAT WERE AVAILABLE, WHICH WERE in the unused funds for Georgia Commission on the Holocaust, which was $4.4 million. Because we didn't fully fund it and these funds were available, we wanted to bring it back to fully fund the project so that we wouldn't have to come back in the future asking for the additional $400,000. But those were the funds that were available at that time.

I think what we did is we took the money that we had available and applied it to that. Now we've got more accurate costs and we've got to make up the difference. Okay.

And to just clarify another point to that, it's incremental payment, so we weren't putting all of the money out at one time. We knew that we'd have the opportunity to come back and true up the budget.

Any other discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on agenda item 2026.06, resolution to approve FYE 2026 budget amendment to increase PFA overflow parking project cost budget. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. Is there a motion to adjourn the Public Facilities Authority? Chairman Paul. Mr. Paulson. I move adjournment. Mr. Paulson moves adjournment. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconded by Mr. Roberts. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The PFA is adjourned. Moving to regular order, I would like to call this meeting of the Sandy Springs City Council to order for Tuesday, May 19th, 2026. Will the city clerk please make the announcements and call the roll?

Just a reminder to everyone in attendance, please continue to silence those cell phones and electronic devices. Also, a reminder to anybody providing public comment or maybe allotted up to three minutes to speak on their single chosen topic. As I call roll, please confirm your attendance. Mayor Rusty Paul. Present. Council Member John Paulson. Here. Council Member Melody Kelly. Present. Council Member Melissa Mueller. Here. Council Member Frank Roberts. Here. Council Member Mary Ford. Here. Council Member Andrew Chensky.

Here. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Madam Clerk, have we received any public comment colleagues?

None for general public comment.

Okie doke. We will close the public comment period. Is there a motion to approve the meeting agenda?

Mayor Paul, I move approval of meeting agenda for Tuesday, May 19, 2026.

We have a motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Roberts, that we approve the meeting agenda. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question's on the approval of the meeting agenda. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The meeting agenda is approved. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Mayor Paul.

Ms. Mueller.

I move that we approve the consent agenda for Tuesday, May 19, 2026.

Motion by Ms. Mueller. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion by Ms. Mueller, seconded by Ms. Ford, that we approve the consent agenda. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question's on the consent agenda. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The consent agenda is approved. Moving to presentations, the clerk will please read the first item.

This is item 2026, 134, and it's a proclamation in recognition of National Public Works Week, presented by Mayor Rusty Paul. Thank you.

We want to recognize the great men and women who work in our Public Works Department and all the fine work they do. In fact, we saw one of their great projects come to fruition this past Friday when I stood out on the edge of Roswell Road and watched somebody go eastbound on Johnson Ferry for the first time probably in centuries. So thank you for that. They do a great job. We're very proud of them, and I'll read the proclamation. Whereas public works professionals serve our citizens as recognized first responders, providing vital support to emergency response partners, helping protect essential services and restoring those services following emergencies. And whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and resilient communities and to public health, high quality of life, and well-being of the people of the city of Sandy Springs, and whereas these infrastructure and services could not be provided without dedicated efforts of public works professionals who are engineers, managers, and employees at all levels of government and the private sector, who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, and protecting our nation's infrastructure and providing vital services for our citizens, And whereas it is in the public interest of our citizens in the city of Sandy Springs to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in their respective communities. And whereas the year 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week, sponsored by the American Public Works Association, be it now therefore resolved, that the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, that they approve the designation of the week of May 17th through 23rd as 2026 as National Public Works Week and urge all citizens to join with representatives of the American Public Works Association and government agencies in recognizing the substantial contributions of our public works professionals, engineers, managers, and employees to make protecting our health and safety an advancing quality of life for all. Resolve this the 19th day of May 2026, approved under my hand, Russell K. Paul, Mayor of the City of Sandy Springs. Mr. Martin, will you come accept this proclamation on behalf of your team? Mayor, may I ask you to raise the joints?

Sure.

If I could, sorry, I just didn't remain in your agenda. That's okay.

Perfectly appropriate. Thank you all. Get the wide angle lens, Carter.

All right, get us all directed so we're in here together.

Okay, speed's in. We're going to have to make multiple rows, so some people want to come in front and then find the window. There you go. Good there. Order people in front, please. I'll bet you should. We have more space on this side.

I've been in the front before. Don't walk Melissa. Walk Melissa. I'm right behind you.

Melissa's been here from the beginning.

Oh, I'm blocking the mayor now. Karen, too.

And several others, obviously.

I can't see you. Or you can't see me, I can see you. Perfect. All right. One, two, three.

NOW BACK TO WORK WITH ALL YOU PEOPLE. MOVING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS, WILL THE CLERK PLEASE READ THE FIRST ITEM?

YES, WE DO HAVE SEVERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS TONIGHT. I'D LIKE TO READ THE RULES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY JUST ACQUAINTING EVERYONE WITH THE RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE APPLICANTS AND ALL THOSE SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION. will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present the application. The applicant may choose to save some of the time for rebuttal following the presentation of the opposition. The opposition will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to support its position. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to make any closing remarks provided time remains from the original allotted time. City staff will keep track of the time for both sides. Those called to be... Those called to speak will be taken in the order that the speaker cards were received by the city clerk staff prior to the beginning of tonight's meeting. All speakers will please identify themselves by name, address, and organization, if applicable, before beginning their presentation. Just a reminder that demonstration of any sort within the chamber is prohibited, so please refrain from any outbursts or any dialogue with the person speaking. And finally, material should not be submitted to the council during the meeting unless you're requested to do so. The first item is 2026-135, and that's RZ256, Spalding Drive. Consideration of an ordinance to rezone the properties at 1265, 1309, 1329, 1349, and 1369 Spalding Drive from RE1 to RD9 zoning district. This is presented by Planning and Zoning Manager Michelle McIntosh-Ross.

Ms. McIntosh-Ross.

Yes, good evening.

Thank you. For your consideration, tonight is a request for a zoning map amendment, RZ25-6, to rezone properties at, and Rocky already mentioned, 1265, 1309, 1329, 1349, and 1369 Spalling Drive. FROM RE1 TO RD9, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. I DIDN'T TOUCH IT. OKAY. HERE WE HAVE OUR AREA MAPS. THE PARCEL IS IN PROTECTED NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S THE CHARACTER AREA. And the existing zoning is RE1. The south portion that you see in gray on those two, or maybe it looks white on here, but that is in the city of Dunwoody. And portions of the two of the parcels are located in the city of Dunwoody. The map to the right is our aerial image. And you can see that the subject site is outlined in the teal blue. To the left is the existing survey of the properties showing the five existing lots. To the right shows the surrounding development. To the north is Stratford Manor, a subdivision, and Spalding Springs, both developed as RD9. And to the west is the Whitehall neighborhood developed as RD12. This is what it looks like on the ground. The existing site is developed with single family detached homes that face Spalding Drive, each with a driveway and curb cut onto Spalding Drive. The proposed development, the applicant is proposing to rezone the five parcels to RD9 to allow the development of a single family detached neighborhood of 21 homes in the city of Sandy Springs that would have a single connection to Pitts Road at the signalized intersection. Each house would exceed the RD9,000 square foot minimum lot size. and it'll be at an average of 10,900 square feet. The homes would range in size from 3,500 square feet to 4,500 square feet. The neighborhood would feature two pocket parks, two underground stormwater detention facilities, and a common area near the entrance. Again, the entrance to the new neighborhood would align with the pitched road at the signalized intersection with Spalling Drive. Staff's recommendation for approval considered that the RD9 request is in keeping with the residential detached living still within the protected neighborhood character area and similar to the residential development in the vicinity. The proposed zoning map amendment aligns closely with the goals of the next 10 comprehensive plan, which emphasizes the importance of preserving established single family neighborhoods and increasing the supply of housing and range of housing choices. The amendment will create a new neighborhood of 21 single-family detached homes in Sandy Springs, increasing the housing supply and maintaining the appropriate character with consistent lot sizes in the surrounding area. The recommendation is approval. Staff recommends approval with conditions of zoning map amendment rezoning RZ-25-6 to rezone from RE-1 to RD-9 with the following conditions. That the entrance of the subdivision shall be at the Pitts Road Spalling Drive signalized intersection. Number two, the two stormwater facilities along Spalling Drive shall be installed underground and the surface shall be developed as usable amenity space. Number three, the number of homes to be developed in the Sandy Springs portion shall be limited to 21. Number four, no more than three additional homes developed in the area within the city of Dunwoody shall have access to or from Spalding Drive. Number five, the average lot size of the 21 proposed residential lots within the subdivision shall be no less than 10,500 square feet. Number six, parking of construction vehicles or vehicles related to the site development shall only park on the subject site and shall not park on Spalding Drive or Pitts Road or any of the streets that intersect with Spalding Drive or Pitts Road. Number seven, and I'll mention that this condition was added since Planning Commission to be consistent with the requirements of the zoning. Number seven is the property owner shall ensure compliance with the planned city projects, including the dedication of any required rights-of-way or easements, and that this verbiage be included in any plat for the property. And number eight, development shall be substantially similar to the site plan that was provided. That is my presentation.

All right. Thank you, Ms. McIntosh-Ross. Hang around in case we've got questions. Who's here on behalf of the applicant? If you'd come forward and make your presentation, please.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Alex Brock with Smith-Gambrel-Russell. Here on behalf of the Providence Group of Georgia and joining me tonight, I have Mr. Warren Jolly and others with the Providence Group. And I'd like to keep my speech short because it's my understanding we have several representatives of the surrounding homeowners associations to speak and support. So I'd like to reserve time for them to speak. But the plan that is before you tonight is the culmination of numerous community meetings between the Providence Group and the adjacent neighborhoods. It's also a back-and-forth dialogue between the applicant, city staff, and the community. We've made a number of changes since our initial submittal back in December, including shifting the drive to the intersection of Pitts Road and Spalding, which was a direct request of the adjacent neighborhoods. We have submitted a traffic study. We've also created a buffer plan consisting of a six-foot shadow box privacy fence and a double row of evergreen trees. And we've also accommodated a room for future right-of-way expansion as requested by city staff and included a left turn lane on Spalding Drive and The zoning that we are requesting, the RD9 zoning, is commiserate with other zoning districts in the area and existing developments. As Ms. McIntosh-Ross noted, the Spalding Springs subdivision across Spalding Drive is zoned RD9. Stratford Manor and Woodland Manor on Pitts Road are also zoned RD9. Our lot size averages around 12,160 square feet, which is commiserate with the existing lots in the area in those RD9 subdivisions. In addition to be compatible with the surrounding zoning, the plan is also in conformance with the city's comp plan. The property is within the protected neighborhood character area, which calls for infill housing that is compatible with the existing residential. As I've noted, and as you heard Ms. McIntosh-Ross note, what we are proposing is commiserate and compatible with what exists in the area today. Planning staff and Planning Commission have both recommended approval with conditions. We are in agreement with those conditions, but we would like to add one more. And this comes from direct negotiations with the adjacent neighborhood HOAs. And that is the Homeowners Association shall maintain all exterior fencing and landscape buffer material. The Providence Group intends to maintain the buffer and the fencing through the HOA. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THIS APPLICATION WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. NOW I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT AND RESERVE ANY REMAINING TIME AFTER THEY SPEAK FOR REBUTTAL. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE TWO SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION. FIRST WE HAVE MELINDA COBB WHO WILL BE FOLLOWED BY RONDA SMITH.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and city council members. My name is Melinda Cobb. I live in Spalding Springs, which is the neighborhood directly across and the neighborhood where we shifted their proposed entrance to now come in at Pitts Road. I've been in my neighborhood for 24 years, so I predated the city being formed. So I'm a lifelong member of Sandy Springs. As was just indicated, we did have many meetings and several negotiations about what was happening in that area. As many of you know, there was a Pitts Road rework of that intersection recently. And while that helped with some of the traffic that heading eastbound, it allowed that left-hand turn lane and doesn't back it up, we still have a very substantial traffic problem that happens from Pitts Road to Roberts Station. So much so that when you take a left out of my neighborhood onto Spalding Drive, which is 0.2 miles to get to that light, during you know many times the day could take 15 minutes to clear that light and as I drove here tonight again from Pitts Road to Roberts Drive was just completely you know so much that we have trouble making a left so that was of concern with this neighborhood going in with the construction activity the new car activity and they initially showed us some plans with the turn lanes on Spalding to help mitigate that so that people turning aren't blocking THE FLOW, AND ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S BEEN CORRECTED AND NOW SUBMITTED THAT WHETHER IT'S WITH THE DEVELOPER OR WITH THE that there does need to be turn lanes and mitigating traffic efforts made in light of this neighborhood going in, regardless of this neighborhood going in. On Pitts Road, when that rework was done, there were turn lanes added in for the two neighborhoods to either side, one with 16 homes, one with 40 homes. So we just want to say that we had met with the developers several times came to a lot of agreements that Rhonda will also summarize, but I would just put out there that the traffic control is of utmost importance to all the members there that use that road, neighbors and people that pass. It's become a major thoroughfare. The developer conducted an additional traffic study, I believe at the request of Sandy Springs, And they did show a very significant increase in the traffic count and some unsafe lefts coming out of my neighborhood. But to summarize, we are in agreement with the development being built with the conditions and, again, just any mitigating traffic conditions that can be imposed on the developer or on the city to keep the flow going there. Maybe the light needs to be reworked too at Roberts. Thank you. Ms. Smith.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Rhonda Smith, 9725 Roberts Drive, Sandy Springs. And I speak to you tonight on behalf of our board and come in support of this application and the approval by staff and the Planning Commission. Initially, the impacted community and those who travel the Spalding Corridor were gravely concerned about the impact that any additional traffic burden of new homes might have. And that is certainly evidenced in the volume of opposition comments in your packet. The applicant has made, as you heard, a concerted effort to meet with impacted neighborhoods multiple times to understand and work to mitigate the concerns of those impacted, inclusive of the need for additional planted landscape buffers that exceed the standard requirements, and as well a commitment for the HOA to be responsible for upkeep of fences and those buffers, as you just heard, and we hope that you'll add that as a condition. And as you just heard from Spalding Springs, from Melinda, and you've probably heard by email from other neighborhoods near to the Pitts Road intersection, there are still concerns about impact on existing traffic conditions and what infrastructure will be installed when the intersection becomes a four-way. It's imperative, then, in addition to staff's recommended conditions found in their report, at minimum, that you condition an update to Condition 8 regarding the site plan to specify there will absolutely be installation of turn lane infrastructure as shown on the site plan in your packet. And installation of these will ensure that those waiting for ingress will not negatively impact an already difficult corridor that today handles in excess of 10,000 cars per day. And as Melinda described, there's still an issue in this corridor. We've asked for a postmortem of the Pitts Road intersection work. I believe the anniversary of that project is coming up. And if there is need for additional work here, let's get something done if it's a light timing or whatever it is that can get the traffic flowing and keep it flowing better in that area I'm sure the community would appreciate it. Obviously the applicant's in agreement with all the other conditions and this application really is a study in how to solve for concerns. In light of what will be a significant change from five lots to 21 plus the three on the other side of the city line in Dunwoody, the applicant worked very hard to mitigate the community's concerns. And I'd like to thank staff and the community for their cooperation to get to this point. Again, Council of Neighborhoods asks for your approval and specifically conditioning it to the site plan as shown with the turn lane infrastructure installed. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. We'll reserve the balance of time for the applicant. We'll now start with the opposition.

Yes, we have one in opposition, John Simides.

Is he present? Going once, going twice, closed. All right, so no further comment? All right, we will close the public hearing. You have heard the report of the planning zoning manager as well as the applicant and the supporting conversation. What's the... Did he sign up?

Mayor, the applicant had two minutes and something, I believe, in reserved time, if you want to offer that to them.

Does he want to rebut himself? Okay. I didn't think you did. When you got to sale, I guess you should not be. Never mind. All right. We've closed the public hearing. You've heard the reports of the planning and zoning manager as well as the applicant and supporting testimony. What's the desire of council? Mayor Paul. Mr. Paulson.

I move approval of agenda item 2026-135, RZ-256, request for mayor and city council consideration of an ordinance to rezone the properties at 1265, 1309, 1329, 1349, 1369, Spalding Drive from RE1, residential detached, one acre minimum lot size to RD9, Residents should detach 9,000 square feet minimum lot size zoning district with two additions. One is, I'm not too sure I got the right wording here, but something to the effect that HOA shall maintain all common and landscape areas, fences, and buffers. Is that about right?

That would be condition number nine.

That condition number nine? And if I didn't get it worded right, I was just trying to copy what you said. AND ALSO ITEM 8, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED, INCLUDING THE TURN LANES SHOWN.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. PAULSON. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Ms. Mueller, that we approve Agenda Item 2026.135, an ordinance rezoning the properties at 1265, 1309, 1329, 1349, 1369 Spalding Drive from RA1 to RD9. Any discussion?

Mayor Paul. Okay, hold on. Mr. Paulson is the maker of the motion, then Ms. Mueller. So, thank you. So, I got a call about this property, got to be eight, nine months ago, from some of the folks at Spaulding Springs. And as Rhonda Smith just said, this is a study in civic engagement, if nothing else. They called, they'd heard about this development, and quite frankly, didn't really know what the next steps were. So they got smart quick. They got involved in the community meetings. And the biggest issue, there are two issues. One is the entrance that was originally shown right across from their entrance just looked like a nightmare to them. And so they're pretty vociferous about that part. The broader issue is the one of traffic, and we're going to have to, as a city, look at traffic on Spalding Drive in this area because at 5 o'clock, it's very hard to get through here. It's not necessarily this site's fault. We actually improved Pitts Road and Spalding, which made Pitts Road and Spalding flow better, but it just stacked more cars up from Roberts West. So they met with a developer and this idea of moving the entrance to Pitts Road was one that started to take shape and that took the traffic away from right across the street from them. And I'm pleased that the applicant figured out a way to do that and I think it's a better solution anyway. At least now you've got all the traffic coming into that particular intersection. So that was again, the developer cooperating with the community trying to resolve the concerns and the obstacles. This is how it's supposed to work. We got a good developer. He's done good things in the past. I'm assuming he's going to do good things on this one going forward. So I'm supporting this project. And then let's look at the traffic part of this, Marty, as we get further into this and try to figure, is there anything we can do to make this better? Because it is just a heavily trafficked area. But that's really not that this applicant's, it's not his job to fix the traffic in the whole area. But anyway, that's the background behind it, and I think it's a good project. Ms. Mueller.

So I have a question about condition number four. And how will we ensure that the development on the Dunwoody side is consistent with what is in our condition? Because it would go through a separate process in Dunwoody. So how do we do that cross-governmental process?

Yes, so we've been in contact with the planners and the planning department in Dunwoody, and the applicant has assured us that they will produce lots that are similar to what they're producing in Sandy Springside. As far as us having a condition, I'm not sure that we... I could ensure that he does it that way, but if the applicant wants to speak to that, I guess they can.

I was just curious because we have the condition, but, I mean, holding that accountable to another jurisdiction, I didn't know how that would work. Well, our condition is that there will be no more than three homes. Three that access our side from that side. Yes.

And if I may interject, I had a concern about this as well. This condition means that other than these three, nobody else from Dunway can come through here and attach. There's a physical difficulty with actually making a connection, but regardless of that physical difficulty, there's a big retaining wall there. But I believe this condition says there's only three homes on the Dunway side that can have access to Spalding Drive. It seems to me that that covers it.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

I appreciate the comments about the traffic and the turn lanes. And I am wanting to make sure we've got clarity around exactly what turn lane it is we're talking about. And if the motion needs to clarify what, you know, the direction and which, you know, which way it needs to go. Because my understanding is that the ask is that that turn lane be in place when the development is being built, not something that's come and added later. So do we have clarity on, like, which direction we're talking about, and does that need to be part of the motion?

Ms. McIntosh-Ross, would you address the concern?

Yes. So we have a site plan in the packet that has arrows. We made the applicant put the arrows on the site plan so you have those arrows on there showing the direction of the terms. And so... Yes, so with us saying essentially similar to this site plan with the arrows gives us the directions.

In other words, by having that, it's part of the materials for this approval.

Yes.

And that would make it part of the ordinance.

Yes, and we'll attach it to the ordinance as well.

All right, thank you. That's why I added including the turn lanes into this item four just to make sure. Item nine, I think, the last one.

Any further discussion? Mr. Lee. Did you pull your microphone around, please?

What about the council person's question about the timing of it? That's usually not involved in the development process.

Yeah, I'm not sure about when, you know, it's feasible to have the timing of when they should put it in prior to the homes or is it at the last development of the last home? I'm not sure what will be feasible for the developer as far as doing that and what you would want for that.

Mr. Jolly, would you wish to address that?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, Warren Jolly of the province group. All the all the road improvements will be done at beginning obviously it's a big intersection We can't control the signal the signal intersection of the timing of when all the wires work But far as where the lane is in the in the striping and how that that will be done initially And it would be required before we probably have a final plat to be building any homes that would all be in both turn lanes Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Joey any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. Ms. McIntosh-Ross.

I just want to make sure if we're adding that statement into our conditions when you guys vote as far as having the two lanes installed prior to the final plan.

Well, it's not part of the motion at this point.

Okay, so I just want, all right.

All right, thank you. If there's no further discussion, we'll call the question. The question is on agenda item 2026.135, an ordinance to rezone the properties of 1265, 1309, 1329, 1349, and 1369 Spalding Drive from RA1 to RD9 with conditions as outlined previously. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. The clerk will please read the next item.

This is Jenna. I'm number 2026136. That's RZ257. The address 5680 Wittner Drive. Request for consideration of an ordinance to rezone the property at 5680 Wittner Drive. That's parcel number 1701300010010. FROM RE2 TO RD7 ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS PRESENTED BY PLANNING ZONING MANAGER MICHELLE MCINTOSH-ROSS.

MS. MCINTOSH-ROSS.

ALL RIGHT. HELLO. AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, RZ25-7, TO REZONE THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5680 WHITNER DRIVE FROM RE2 TO RD27. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. That was all on this slide. Okay, the character area is protected neighborhood and the existing zoning is RE2 with some neighboring parcels zoned already 27 as you see on the map. The aerial image shows the parcel outlined in teal blue. Here is the existing survey with the single house that is accessed from Witner Drive. Here are some images of what the site looks like with the vacant home on the parcel. The majority of the parcels south of Mount Vernon Highway are zoned RD27, and the subject parcel is located south of Mount Vernon Highway. The parcels in the vicinity are accessed by another street. All the parcels in the vicinity accessed by another street other than Mount Vernon Highway are zoned RE27 except for this subject parcel. All of the RE1 or RE2 parcels along Mount Vernon Highway in this vicinity are accessed from Mount Vernon Highway except for this parcel. Here is the configuration of the proposed development to create three lots that face Witner Drive and are accessed from Witner Drive. The applicant is proposing to rezone to RD 27 to allow three single unit detached homes along Widener Drive. The lots will exceed the RD 27,000 square foot minimum lot size and meet all the zoning regulations for the RD 27 zoning district. Staff considered that the requested zoning, RD27, brings the property in line with the surrounding parcels along with the drive and the surrounding neighborhood south of Mount Vernon Highway. It meets the goals of the next 10 comprehensive plans supporting low-density residential development in the protected neighborhood character area and increases the single-family detached housing supply. recommendation is staff recommends approval with conditions of zoning map amendment rz25-7 to rezone from re2 to rd27 with the following conditions all homes shall be oriented to face whitner drive and their primary street setback shall be parallel to whitner drive all driveways and curb cuts shall be placed on Whitmer Drive. No driveway or curb cut shall be placed on Mount Vernon Highway. The driveway and curb cut for the home closest to Mount Vernon Highway shall be placed as far away from Mount Vernon Highway as practicable, and the property owner shall ensure compliance with planned city projects, including the dedication of any required rights-of-way or easements, and that this verbiage be included in any plat for the property. And that is my presentation.

All right. Is there someone here for the applicant?

WELL, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT. MY NAME IS STOKE LEE WEINBERG AND I AM THE APPLICANT WITH WHITNER GREEN ESTATES. MY COMPANY OWNS THIS PROPERTY. WE DO A LOT OF LUXURY DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS BUCKHEAD AND SANDY SPRINGS. We appreciate your consideration of this rezoning here. Just want to keep it short and sweet. We do support the staff recommendation, the planning commission recommendation with conditions. And I think Ms. McIntosh-Ross gave a very good summary of everything. So I'd like to just reserve my time to answer any questions that may pop up. All right.

Thank you very much. Any in opposition?

Yes, we received three in opposition. The first is Meredith Johnson, who will be followed by E.J. Stern, and third will be Ron Kaplan.

Ms. Johnson.

Good evening, mayor and council members. I'm Meredith Johnson. I'm a resident of Whitner Drive. I've been living in Sandy Springs for 19 years, and I'm appreciative of the opportunity to speak on behalf of our neighborhood. I respectfully oppose item B, the request to rezone 5680 Whitner Drive from RE2 to RD27. This proposal represents a significant increase in density that is inconsistent with the established character of this area. and the intent of existing RE2 zoning. My primary concern is safety. This is a corner lot positioned on a hill where sight lines are already challenging for drivers, pedestrians, and residents navigating the intersection. Adding multiple homes will increase turning movements, driveway activity, parked cars, deliveries, and overall traffic volume in a location where visibility is already limited. This neighborhood is highly walkable, with residents regularly walking dogs, exercising, pushing strollers, and moving throughout the community on foot. Increased density at this particular site raises legitimate pedestrian safety concerns that should not be overlooked. I'm also concerned about precedent. Approving this rezoning sends the message that established estate lots with RE-zoned neighborhoods are open to continued subdivision and increased density. Over time, those incremental changes can fundamentally alter the character and planning vision of the area. Growth should be thoughtful and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In this case, I do not believe this request is appropriate for this site or this intersection. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the council to deny the rezoning request. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next is E.J. Stern.

Ms. Stern.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. I'm E.J. Stern, and I'm a proud resident of Sandy Springs. I moved here in 2013 and have raised a beautiful family in Wittener Estates. We love our neighborhood, and ultimately we want what's best for our neighborhood. But there are far too many issues raised by this rezoning request that will ultimately be to the detriment of the neighborhood, and as Meredith has shared with you, also can set poor precedent for the broader Sandy Springs community. I want to first touch on environmental concerns. The tree canopies and the green space loss from clearing two acres of the lot is a lot for three homes. Second, the impervious surfaces such as the driveways and the rooftops that prevent water from really soaking into the ground creates a lot of issues in terms of drainage and water flow. And this is perhaps the biggest issue that we see, because this is the, as you saw in the pictures, this is the house at the very top of the hill, and it's a very steep hill with water going down. Being at the top of the hill is critical because it increases runoff from the three lots, which will accelerate the velocity downhill, and it will impact every resident down that hill. This is both an environmental and a safety concern. And finally, the erosion it creates to the neighboring properties is also highly problematic and has a direct impact on the property value of that home and the homes below it. I won't go too deep into safety. I think Meredith did a great job covering the safety concerns that we have. I was a mom 10 years ago pushing my daughter up that hill. I then have walked my dogs up that hill. And I can tell you that the sight lines from the driveways and the curb cuts, especially at the top of the hill, are really hard. And I've seen many people really face scary moments. So I think it's really important that we think about those things and the speed concerns it creates. Finally, of course the construction and the traffic and staging during the preparation. I think raises a big concern But the last thing I want to mention and one that I think bothered a lot of residents the most is that the notice was inadequate Like many of my fellow residents probably like many of us in this room We live and die by our calendar and for many of us we put the date on our calendar and held it sacred for this initial meeting but the date changed, and many of my fellow residents showed up on that initial date, paid for parking downstairs, came prepared and ready, and found out when the meeting didn't happen that the date had been changed. And when we went back, and I raised this with my city council member, it's because the big signs at that property were just taped over with a new date. And yes, there could have been other communications that went out from the property, the new property owner, but I go back to that sign and what I set in my calendar and that there was no proper other than a rewritten across the top. So I want you to know that the low resident turnout the last time we had this meeting wasn't apathy. It was a notice failure here, and any recommendations from that meeting should carry less weight as a result. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask that the council deny the rezoning request or at least allow for additional time and consideration. Thank you so much for your time today.

Next, we have Ron Kaplan.

Mr. Kaplan.

Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to address the forum here. I really have nothing else to add up what the two young ladies have added initially. I've been living on Wintner for the past 23 years. I grew up at Emory, and I think this will just create a great hazard at the intersection to put this additional housing in. And, yes, I walk up that hill every day, and it is tough. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any further questions? Comment cards opposed? I will close that. The applicant has time for rebuttal.

Thank you. And I appreciate all the feedback that we've gotten, you know, throughout this process and including the residents just spoke. I just want to address a couple of items that were brought up. to bring a little clarity to it. I guess the first thing would be the notice and notification. There was some miscommunication in terms of the correct date and we unfortunately had to delay this entire process by a month. The planning commission and the mayor THIS MEETING TODAY BY A MONTH AND UNFORTUNATELY HAD TO SEND OUT THE 45 NOTICES TO THE SURROUNDING MEMBERS AN EXTRA TIME THAN WE WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE HAD TO WAIT AN EXTRA MONTH TO DO THIS. AND WE DID IT. WE DID EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO. WE ALL WANTED TO HAVE IT HAPPEN ON THE ORIGINAL DATE BUT UNFORTUNATELY BY LAW IT COULDN'T HAPPEN. SO THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED THERE. And then I would say that I hear a lot of concern about the precedent that this would set. And I think, you know, Ms. McIntosh-Ross hit the nail on the head with the fact that this lot is the last remaining lot in this entire corridor that's accessed by an additional side street that is not RD-27. I don't think that there's any additional precedent that this is going to set. I think that the reality of the situation is that this lot is the only lot on Wittner that isn't RD-27 and also the only lot that doesn't fit within this entire corridor for that zoning characteristic. Always in development, we understand there are concerns about stormwater and tree protection, and I will note that this is just regarding the zoning of the property. We are subject to all of the same tree protection regulations, stormwater regulations, erosion regulations, et cetera, et cetera, that any other project is going to have to be subject to once we apply for building permits to build these homes. So I thank you again for your time, and I'm going to reserve the rest of my time.

All right. Well, we're about to close the public hearing, so if you're going to say anything, you better say it now. All right, we'll close the public hearing. You've heard the report of the planning and zoning manager and of the applicant and those in opposition.

What's the desire of council? Mayor Paul. Mr. Chinsky. I move approval of agenda item 2026-136, an ordinance to rezone the property at 5680 Wittner Drive, parcel number 1701340010010. from RE2, residentially attached, two-acre lot minimum size, to RD27, residentially attached, 27,000 square feet minimum lot size zoning district.

Motion by Mr. Chensky. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion by Mr. Chensky, seconded by Ms. Ford, that we approve Agenda Item 2026-136, an ordinance to rezone property of 5680 Wittner Drive from RE2 to RD27. Any discussion?

Mayor Paul.

Mr. Chensky.

So I first want to thank all of the public comments and input that we got tonight and leading up tonight. There were a number of public comments submitted with our agenda packet. And so if you'll indulge me just for a second, I have a few different issues I'd love to just address. First, the issue with the notice, I hear you on that. It's actually something I've already addressed with staff. I also want to note that our website was recently updated to help BETTER CLARIFY ZONING CASES AND SUCH. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WILL REMAIN FOCUSED ON BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS PROPER NOTICE OF THESE ISSUES AND THE APPLICANT HAD TO DELAY THIS BY A MONTH BY LAW IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK AND I APPRECIATE THAT THAT PROCESS HAS HAPPENED. Second, there's a number of issues raised in the public comments, and I'll just try to summarize so we're not here all night. So stormwater. My understanding is that you all have some experience in Buckhead, especially with some pretty advanced stormwater address that. Can the applicant speak to that a little bit? Would you mind speaking to that?

Absolutely.

As you all are probably aware, there was a very significant stormwater ordinance passed by the state. It's probably been about two years now that all of the local municipalities in the state have had to adopt. And it's much stricter than what was in place before. These detention systems that are on residential properties now are being required to be the same standards as commercial properties, and pretty much every residential development now, single family, single house development, is in excess of $100,000, the cost when before we were looking at maybe $20,000. So that all being said, that any new construction permit that's applied for where you're exceeding 5,000 square feet impervious, which these all will and most larger homes will, is subject to that new ordinance. So we will, You know, we understand that. We've built that into our costs. And then from an erosion perspective, I mean, that's obviously a huge concern. We take an extra step on all of our sites to hire a third-party company, HB Next is their name, to monitor all of our sites. That's only required by law if you disturb on a single property over an acre, which, you know, once these are subdivided, they won't be. But we still have paid the hundreds of dollars a month to have that company come out once a week, as well as after every rain event, to check all of the BMPs, the silt fences, to make sure we're doing everything we're supposed to, which, of course, in turn helps the neighborhood avoid any situations that might happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Second issue, so traffic. So I understand that traffic on Mount Vernon in the morning especially is very rough. I drive it very often myself. Here, I don't think that the addition of net two homes facing Whitner is going to materially change the traffic situation, especially since We're requiring the one closest to Mount Vernon to have a driveway set back as far from Mount Vernon as possible. However, I would ask Public Works to take a look at this intersection. And honestly, this is sort of independent of this application. I've gotten feedback from a number of community members about that curve and some blind sites. So I would like to take a look at whether some additional signage could be helpful there. And again, that's sort of independent of this application, but related to some of the comments. THE CONCERN WITH TREES, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW OUR TREE ORDINANCE AND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE ALSO RECENTLY GOT AN UPDATE ON OUR TREE CANOPY COVERAGE TO THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH SHOWED THAT OUR TREE CANOPY ACROSS THE CITY, INCLUDING IN DISTRICT SIX, HAS ACTUALLY INCREASED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO I HEAR THE CONCERN ABOUT CLEAR CUTTING. I DON'T LIKE TO SEE IT AS MUCH AS ANYBODY ELSE, BUT WE DO HAVE DATA SHOWING THAT WE ARE STILL MAINTAINING OUR TREE CANOPY. And then with regard to lot size and neighborhood character, I looked very closely at the map that our staff repaired, and I'm familiar with the street. I'm there pretty often. In terms of dividing the lot, so these are not flag lots. These are not adding something like townhomes or multifamily to the neighborhood. I hear some comments were suggesting, could we do two lots instead of three? But if we do that, at that point, the price of the home is going to be $3 or $4 million and make it really hard for a new family to be able to afford to move into the area. I know there's some concern about the appearance of the homes. I think those images that we see are basically AI-generated placeholders. That's not what the homes are actually going to look like to address the appearance. But I'll close, repeat publicly what I told staff yesterday in our first meeting about the comprehensive plan. which is that housing is going to be one of our top issues, maybe our top issue in our comp plan. And I would love for the city over the next year to develop some kind of strategy or rubric for how we are looking at these lot division zoning cases. We have three of them tonight. This is not gonna slow down and it's something that I think we need to look at to provide some criteria. Because I would love to see us renovate more homes rather than scraping lots and maybe that's through permitting changes or some sort of incentives, I don't know yet. But I hope the public will participate in these discussions. So I appreciate the comments. I am in support of this rezoning, but I think the concerns raised are something we should look at over the next year as we develop a comp plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chinsky. Let me also add that I've asked staff to look at mount vernon don't block the box markings at whitner glen errol and that area so that people can have an opportunity to get out because like you i drive that area frequently and it is a challenge so we're going to do that That's just a bucket of paint, and we can at least do that to make it easier for these folks to be able to get out onto Mount Vernon when it does back up. Ms. Mueller.

I have a question on the motion. Should we have included the conditions?

The conditions, I think, are part of the proposal, but just for clarity, if Mr. Chinsky wants to clarify that those would include the... The conditions? Yes. Okay. So his motion included. It's in the material that you presented that's part of this resolution. But it's always nice to clarify. Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on Agenda Item 2026.136, an ordinance to rezone the property of 5680 Wittner Drive from RE2 to RD27 with conditions. All in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. The item is approved. The clerk will please read the next item.

This is agenda item number 2026137, RZ258, regarding 5800 and 0 Metro Road. Consideration of an ordinance to rezone the properties 5800 and 0 Metro Road. Those are parcel IDs number 17170123LL1104. and 17-01-23-LL-1211. From RE-1 to RD-18, zoning district is presenting by plan and zoning manager, Michelle McIntosh-Ross.

Ms. McIntosh-Ross.

Here again. For your consideration is a request for a zoning map amendment. RZ25-8 to rezone the property at 5800 and 0 Mitchell Road from RE1 to RD18. Staff recommends approval with conditions and Planning Commission recommends approval with conditions. THE CHARACTER AREA OF THIS PARCEL IS IN PROTECTED NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE ZONING IS RE1. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE NORTH PARCELS ARE ZONED RD9, AND THE WEST NEIGHBORING PARCELS ARE ZONED RD18, ENVELOPED AS RD18. THE AERIAL IMAGE SHOWS THE PARCEL OUTLINED IN THAT TEAL BLUE, AND YOU CAN SEE INTERSTATE 285 ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE IMAGE, SO JUST A REFERENCE. Here is the existing survey with the house accessed from Mitchell Road. This is what the parcel looks like today. It is forested. It has a single family home, as you can see, off Mitchell Road. Here is the proposed site plan showing the parcel split for the two homes, both with driveway access to Mitchell Road. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to allow the development of two homes compliant with the RD 18 district. Both parcels will exceed the RD 18 minimum regulations. And again, these images are for illustrative purposes. staff's considerations for approval. The requested residential detached RD zoning is intended for single-family detached homes in keeping with the character area and aligns with the Next 10 Comprehensive Plan low-density residential in this area. A slight increase in single-family detached housing and maintaining It shows an increase in the single-family detached housing and maintains compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The recommendation is that staff recommends approval with conditions of Zoning Map Amendment RZ25-8 to rezone from RE1 to RD18 with the following conditions. There is a minimum, sorry, number one, that there is a maximum of two residential lots that can be subdivided at the combined parcels of 170123LL1104 and 170123LL1211. And number two is the property owner shall ensure compliance with the planned city projects, including the dedication of any required rights of way or easements, and that this vivage be included in any plat for the property. And that is my presentation.

All right. Do we have any public comment cards? Okay. Where's the applicant?

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Glad to be here today. My name is Chris Protos. I'm the owner of Permittable. We deliver AI building permit solutions across the metro area. As a side note, I'd love to be part of any sort of refiguring of permitting here in Sandy Springs and across the metro as well. I'm here to speak on behalf of Leon, Edwin the owner of 5800 Mitchell Road We have been in Council with Laquita. I'd like to say thank you to her and all of the staff to make this process very smooth Now much more to add they've done a great job I would say a few things though just as we we consider this application is that number one right the rezoning of this property aligns with the character and We are making sure, as others have said tonight, that we have affordable housing for families in Sandy Springs. I grew up in Sandy Springs. I don't live here today, right, because there's not affordable housing for me and my family. Modest infill housing like this, a split from one into two lots, helps achieve that goal for families while maintaining that character of the neighborhood. I think furthermore, we have engaged the public, and we have responded to their request. For instance, we were able to trim and provide some maintenance, as you saw in those photos. There was some overgrown. That was an eyesore. We took care of that as a response to our public responses. In closing, we're aligned with the staff recommendations, and we are aligned with conditions that are for this rezoning program. I will respectfully request that you approve the rezoning, and I'll reserve my time for rebuttal if necessary.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Protos. Do we have anybody in opposition? Do you want to spend eight minutes rebutting yourself?

No, sir.

Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing. You've heard the report of the planning zoning manager and the applicant. What's the desire of counsel?

Mayor Paul.

Ms. Mueller.

I move that we approve agenda item 2026-137, RZ-25-8, 5800 and 0 Mitchell Road. This is the approval of an ordinance to rezone the properties, 5800 and 0 Mitchell Road, parcel number 17-17-0123. LL, which is land lot, 1104, and 170123, LL 1211, from RE1, residential detached, one-acre minimum size lot, to RD18, residential detached, 18,000 square feet minimum lot size, zoning district with conditions.

I have a motion by Ms. Mueller. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion by Ms. Mueller, seconded by Ms. Ford, that we approve agenda item. Hold on. 2026-137, an ordinance to rezone the properties at 5800 and 0 Mitchell Road from RE1 to RD18. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on agenda item 2026-137, an ordinance rezoning the properties at 5800 and 0 Mitchell Road from RE1 to RD18. 18. All in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. The item is approved. Mr. Protos, there will be a couple of houses there. You can move back here if you wish. All right, thank you. The item is approved. Moving to unfinished business. Clerk, please read the first item.

This is agenda item number 2026-119, consideration of a resolution to approve contract award to Atkins Realis USA. for design services for Roberts Drive Side Path Phase 1 project, that's S2123, and to authorize the city manager to execute the contract. Presented by Public Works Director Marty Martin.

Mr. Martin.

Mayor and Council, good evening. As we discussed last meeting, we seek a contract award approval to Atkins Realis USA for the design of the Roberts Drive Side Path Project Phase 1 and request authorization for the city manager to execute the contract with Atkins. The project extends a side path from Dunwoody Place to the Island Ford entry along Roberts Drive. Incorporated within that is a 12-foot-wide concrete side path, landscape buffer, some street tree planting as well, and mid-block pedestrian crossings in the interest of accessing an existing sidewalk on the other side of the road at strategic locations. Wow. TO AWARD THE PROJECT OR TO SEEK A DESIGNER, THE CITY ISSUED A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS ON AUGUST 13, 2025. SINCE THIS PROJECT DOES USE FEDERAL FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE ATLANTA REGIONAL COMMISSION THROUGH GDOT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH THE CITY PROCUREMENT POLICY AND GDOT'S MANUAL ON PROCUREMENT OF ENGINEERING AND DESIGN RELATED SERVICES AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FUNDS BEING USED, The RFQ was issued as a multi-phase advertisement. Phase one statement of qualifications were due October 1st of 2025. Of the eight consultants responding, four were selected and shortlisted. On October 28th of 2025, the four shortlisted consultants were invited to submit their phase two technical approaches. Of those four shortlisted consultants, Atkins Realis, BCC Engineering, Gresham Smith and Partners, and Infrastructure Consulting and Engineering. An evaluation committee of the Sandy Springs staff, Alan Johnson, Connor Mock, B.B. Lee, Joan Estenbaugh, and Coe Sale, were all involved in the evaluation of the project. The evaluation criteria were as follows, and as we discussed last time, so slight subtlety here, phase one, THERE WERE TOTAL VALUES AVAILABLE FOR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS AND AGAIN FOR RESOURCES AND WORKLOAD CAPACITY. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS HAD A 30% OF OVERALL SCORE AVAILABLE FOR THAT ON THE CONSULTANT and resources and workload capacity had a 20 percent score available for an overall 50 percent of total score in the phase one evaluation portion. Phase two, technical approach and past performance, technical approach constituted some 40 percent of the overall score available and another 10 percent credible against past performance for a total value, and you add all those up, of 100 percent. Now to the evaluation method. The question you asked me the last time, and this gets a bit detailed with a GDOT policy procurement, so I wanted to explain that into a little detail. First, for the procurement of engineering and design consultants, GDOT requires the use of a consensus-based evaluation method. So not an average of scores or a total of scores, but a consensus-based score applied by the evaluation committee. In this case, the evaluators collectively discussed each criterion and agreed upon a single consensus adjectival rating, excellent, good, adequate, marginal, or poor, for each consultant submittal. Each consensus rating is then converted to a point value based on a GDOT-established weighting for that criteria, which is reflected on GDOT's standard evaluation form, which this committee utilized in the performance of this evaluation. Ms. Connie Donnelly with our purchasing department is here. I think she's got another presentation tonight. But she was a part of obtaining those forms, ensuring that we had the proper forms in front of us at the time. The adjectival rating, so consequently with that, with each of those, excellent, receiving 100% of the available score, good, 75%. ADEQUATE 50%, MARGINAL 25, AND POOR ZERO, THOSE VALUES WERE APPLIED TO AN 1,000-POINT OVERALL GDOT SCORING SCALE. SO WITH ALL THAT SAID, As we achieved the scores that were described to you last time in more detail, Atkins Realis, the highest scoring consultant, received a total score of 850 points. They received that point, that score, by receiving an excellent rating on experience and qualifications, full value 30% or 300 points. A GOOD FOR RESOURCES AND AVAILABILITY OF WORKLOAD CAPACITY, 150 POINTS. TECHNICAL APPROACH, A GOOD, AGAIN, 300 POINTS OUT OF AN AVAILABLE 400, 75%. AND EXCELLENT ON PAST PERFORMANCE AT 100, FULL VALUE THERE FOR A TOTAL OF 850. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING RECEIVED AN OVERALL SCORE OF 700. I CAN GO THROUGH THE DETAILS ON HOW THAT WAS ARRIVED AT IF YOU LIKE. THIRD RATED RECEIVED AN OVERALL SCORE OF 675 USING THAT SAME SCORING METHOD, AND BCC ENGINEERING 575 BASED UPON THAT. SO WITH THAT, THAT'S THE MATH AND THE SCORING METHODOLOGY AS WE APPLY THE GDOT STANDARD PROCUREMENT, AND WE ONLY DO A FEW OF THESE EVERY FEW YEARS AS WE DON'T GET THAT MANY DESIGN FUNDS FOR GDOT-SPONSORED PROJECTS. AND THAT'S HOW THE SCORE WAS ACHIEVED OF 850 FOR THE RECOMMENDED CONSULTANT, IN THIS CASE, ATKINS REALIS. ALONG WITH THAT, WE RECEIVED A REVIEWED ATKINS FEE PROPOSAL, AND WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS AWARD OF THE DESIGN CONTRACT FOR S2123, ROBERT STRIVE SIDE PATH, PHASE ONE PROJECT TO ATKINS REALIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $901,634.17. There are adequate funds available within the TSPLOS project identified for this in terms of local matching funds. And if you recollect from last meeting, you also approved the ARC, or excuse me, the GDOT Supplemental Project Framework Agreement, which provided us additional federal funds to provide sufficient funding here to finance this contract. So with that, staff recommends awarding the contract to Atkins Realis. You've heard the report of the public works director.

What's the desire of council?

Mayor Paul. Mr. Paulson. I move approval of agenda item 2026-119, resolution to approve contract award to Atkins Realis USA for design services for Roberts Drive side path project phase 1, S2123, and to authorize city manager to execute same.

Got a motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second?

Second.

Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Chinsky. THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 2026-119, A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT AWARD TO ATKINS REALIS FOR DESIGN SERVICES OF ROBERT DRIVE SIDE PATH PHASE ONE, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT. ANY DISCUSSION? MAYOR PAUL. MR. PAULSON.

MARTY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A QUESTION FOR YOU. THE ATKINS PROPOSAL, YOU ACTUALLY OPENED IT UP AND SAW WHAT THEIR BID WAS. DID YOU LOOK AT THE PRICE THAT NUMBERS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR SUBMITTED?

NO, SIR. WE COULD NOT VIA THIS PROCESS.

Why can't you?

It's a part of the process. It's a qualifications-based selection. What we did do as a part of this is we reviewed the scope of work Atkins proposed. We compared that to our independent estimate that our staff had prepared on what should this cost based on professional services, level of professional required for different activities on it. Reviewing that, we clarified the scope and negotiated to a degree with Atkins to clarify scope and ensure we all had in mind the same level of service and the same services provided. So we reviewed their cost independent of the other offerors, reviewed our estimate and the scope required, and then negotiated the price.

And those two numbers were close? Yes. What did they bid versus what your estimate was?

We estimated a different level of activity. We clarified that they brought down some of the efforts they had anticipated. So their number was higher initially as we clarified, no, this is what we had in mind for this. We don't believe you need to do this, nor do we believe it's required for the project. So we came into consonance or agreement on the level of service, the services to be provided as part of that independent estimate, hours against the specific services that we required for the project.

And then when they adjusted down, did that line up with what your estimate showed?

Yes, sir. It was in consonance at that point with our level of effort to be applied to it.

Okay. In the future, I would just ask, whatever your estimate is, I'd like to see that if your estimate was $300,000, and this guy's $900,000, I want to know that. But I appreciate you clarifying it. Thank you. Ms. Mueller.

So, Marty, now that we have, if this gets approved, when would you anticipate starting, and then how long of a duration is this project?

So, the overall award probably takes 60 days of ADMINISTRATION, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, AGAIN, BECAUSE IT'S GOT GDOT OVERSIGHT ON IT, THAT WE'VE GOT THEIR THUMBS UP AS WELL AS WE MOVE THROUGH WITH THE PROJECT AWARD. AND THEN LIKELY FOR TOTAL DESIGN, I WOULD ESTIMATE TWO YEARS AT A MINIMUM. WE DO HAVE SURVEY WORK TO DO. WE DO HAVE CONCEPT REPORTING VIA GDOT'S PDP. SO TWO YEARS AT A MINIMUM FOR DESIGN WORK. WE EXPECT TO BRING SOME CONCEPT WORK BACK TO THE PUBLIC IN ABOUT ONE YEAR. AND WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE. guess would put me in the ballpark. One year to concept. We'll see what else is required at that point. In the middle of this project, one of the hard parts is done already. The pedestrian crossing over Georgia 400 is already constructed via GDOT's previous bridge improvement there, as well as some of the side path. We do have a significant amount of Earth taming we're going to have to do as you get closer to Dunwoody Place here. If you're familiar with the office complex at the intersection of Dunwoody Place and Roberts Drive, there's a lot of slope to deal with there in the interest of providing a side path there. So that might take some more time and effort to negotiate right away and improvements on that property right away to acquire there. in the interest of being able to create that side path there.

All right, thanks. So we're several years down the road. Just wanted to see when this would end.

Between design and ultimately construction.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. Questions on agenda item 2026-119, a resolution to approve this contract to Atkins Realis for design services for Roberts Drive side path. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. Moving to new business. The clerk will please read the first item.

This is agenda item number 2026-138, consideration of a resolution to declare a surplus certain property owned by the city and directing disposal of the same. Presented by Purchasing Director Connie Donnelly.

Ms. Donnelly.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm here today requesting your approval to declare certain city-owned computer equipment a surplus as outlined in Exhibit A. These items have been identified by the IT department as obsolete equipment that has reached the end of its useful life cycle and is no longer needed for city operations. On October of last year, 2025, Mayor and Council approved the surplus and disposal of nearly 100 computers. Following that approval, the city decided to utilize the surplus computer employee purchase program to give city staff an opportunity to purchase these laptops. The program received strong interest with approximately 190 employees who completed and met eligibility requirements. The city conducted the required employee drawing on April 9th, 2026, where 70 employees were selected to participate. To date, 33 employees have successfully completed their purchases, and the next scheduled pickup session is scheduled for the remaining 37 participants for May 20th and May 21st, which will be tomorrow and Thursday. At this time, the city would like to continue its efforts by conducting another employee drawing to identify an additional 104 staff members for the purchase of the computers and laptops being presented today. As a part of this request, staff is asking mayor and council to waive the applicable section of the purchasing policy related to the surplus computer employee purchase program, which can be found in section 11. It's going to be item C. This waiver would allow the city to continue this process that's already underway without having to restart the program from the beginning. More importantly, this waiver would provide needed flexibility to make the process fair and accessible for all eligible city staff, including service members in the police and fire department. Under the current policy, employees have approximately seven days to pay for their laptops. If payment is not made by the deadline, they lose the opportunity to participate. WHILE THAT TIMELINE MAY WORK FOR EMPLOYEES WITH STANDARD BUSINESS HOURS SCHEDULES, IT CREATES CHALLENGES FOR OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS AND OTHER SHIFT-BASED EMPLOYEES WHOSE WORK SCHEDULE MAY CONFLICT WITH THE CITY'S NORMAL OPERATING HOURS. OVER THE 70 EMPLOYEES SELECTED IN THE FIRST DRAWING, EIGHT INCLUDING SIX SERVICE MEMBERS, would be disqualified due to the payment deadline and scheduling conflicts, even though their names were properly selected. Staff believes that the intent of the program is to provide an equal opportunity for eligible employees to participate, and the requested waiver would help support that intent. Allowing this flexibility will help the city dispose of equipment in a timely and effective manner, reducing administrative delays and continuing a process that has already generated significant employee interest. All equipment is used and will be sold as is with no warranty expressed or implied, and the items represent limited residual value to the city. Staff respectfully recommends approval of the surplus declaration and requested policy waiver. Thank you for your consideration.

All right. You've heard the report of the purchasing director. What's the desire of council?

Mayor Paul. Mr. Paulson. I move approval of agenda item 2026-138, resolution to declare as surplus certain property owned by the city and directing disposal of same.

I have a motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Roberts. That we approve agenda item 2026-138, resolution declaring surplus certain property owned by the city and directing disposal of the same. And that would include, Ms. Donnelly, the waiver that you are requesting. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Any discussion? Mayor Paul. Mr. Paulson. The waiver you're asking for is the time limit waiver, right?

Well, the waiver that I'm asking for, if you take a look at the policy, it has a lot of antiquated processes. So one of those processes is the time limit of seven days. Another process that I would consider administrative would be the requirement of the surplus forms to be completed by city staff. It's asked for those forms to be hand delivered. And so, you know, that's. tends to be a little antiquated because we accept electronic signatures on our contracts and things like that. And so it just does not allow the opportunity for some staff members to be able, especially our service members, to be able to stop what they're doing, come down to the city just to hand deliver a form. So we're just, as far as waiving, not necessarily the compliance pieces, so where the human resource department identifies the eligible employees and the IT department's responsibility of pretty much purging all of the data, wiping the systems clean. We're more so concerned about the administrative responsibilities, like we were just talking about the timeframe, FORMS REQUIRING THIS DRAWING ANNUALLY. SO SINCE THE FIRST DRAWING WAS MADE AND WE GOT THE 190 ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES AND COMPLETED FORMS, WE'VE ALSO RECEIVED ADDITIONAL INTEREST AND ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBERS. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS TO WAIVE THAT ANNUAL REQUIREMENT WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THOSE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES WAIT ANOTHER YEAR IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE.

Okay, you just talked about a lot of stuff that's not included in this. I'm not going to oppose this. If this policy needs to be updated, why don't we update the policy rather than just waiving the thing?

Well, when we update the policy, that is something that we're currently working on. We're looking at updating additional sections outside of Section 11. So we just don't necessarily have those revisions available now, but we wanted to take care of this surplus at the same time that we're surplusing the laptops to be able to allow the IT department the space that they're needing IF THEY'RE NEEDING TO ORDER ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO REMOVE ALL OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S THERE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE ASKING THAT.

I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC. I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE WAVING HERE. AS SOON AS WE START WAVING POLICIES WITHOUT A CLEAR DISTINCTION OF WHAT WE'RE WAVING, IT MAKES ME ASK THE QUESTION, OKAY? OKAY. I CAN BE VERY SPECIFIC. IN THE FUTURE, IF WE'RE GOING TO START WAVING STUFF, PLEASE COME WITH A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT WE'RE WAVING AND WHY WE'RE WAVING IT AND WHAT SECTIONS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

We'll be bringing back some. It needs to be restructured. Most of what is in this policy dates back to the beginning of the city. And in 20 years, business practices have changed pretty significantly. So we were trying to streamline this so that we would be able to resolve this issue in a timely fashion. But, yes, we are working on that, Councilman.

I got it. I'm not opposing this one. But if you would, let's square away the policy so it's a good one. Thank you.

Mr. Roberts. These surplus computers and stuff that you're offering to our employees, what costs?

We're charging, well, the fee is $50 per employee or per laptop.

Okay, and that's clearing everything off of it so they can take it home and put whatever they want on it, right? Yes, sir. Okay, if you don't have any buyers, what happens to these computers?

Then we just would dispose of it in a way that we feel like is most advantageous. But right now, we have really strong interests. We have more staff members that are asking for these laptops, to purchase these laptops, than we do laptops. So we don't foresee that that will be a concern.

So you're telling me that the employees don't have enough money to buy these computers?

No, what I'm saying is we have 190 staff members that have expressed interest, and we have somewhere around about the same number of laptops. I think it's going to be maybe like a 10 difference as far as laptops. We're going to be short 10 laptops. So all of the laptops that we're surplusing, we anticipate staff members purchasing those laptops.

That's all the laptop.

Yes.

Okay.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on agenda item 2026-138, a resolution to declare as surplus certain property owned by the city and directing disposal of the same. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. The clerk will please read the next item.

This is agenda item number 2026-139, consideration of a resolution to approve change order one for the T7256 Glenridge Connector Traffic Signal Upgrade Project, presented by Public Works Director Marty Martin.

Mr. Martin. Mayor and Council, good evening. Tonight I bring before you a recommendation to approve an additional design services change order in the amount of $68,899.85 for the T-7256, Glenridge Connector Traffic Signal Upgrade Project. A little background, the city awarded a task order to KCI Technologies under the Uncalled Traffic Engineering Services Contract in the amount of $144,467.40 on July 3rd of 2025 for traffic signal evaluations for four traffic signals, along Glen Ridge Connector to improve signals to meet Sandy Springs and GDOT's current standards. KCI Technologies undertook a detailed traffic study for each intersection and provided preliminary signal design plans in December of this past year. In the initial scope of work, the City requested an evaluation of four traffic signals to determine if existing left turn movements and pedestrian facilities meet the current GDOT standards. THE FOUR LOCATIONS, STATE ROUTE 400 SOUTH AT 400, GLENRIDGE CONNECTOR AT STATE ROUTE 400 NORTH AT GLENRIDGE CONNECTOR, GLENRIDGE CONNECTOR AT MERIDIAN MARK ROAD AND GLENRIDGE CONNECTOR AT PEACH TREE DUNWOODY ROAD. IN ADDITION TO THE EVALUATION THE CITY WANTED TO ALSO INCORPORATE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM A PREVIOUS MEDICAL DISTRICT TRAFFIC ROADWAY SAFETY STUDY THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN JULY OF 2021. After review of the traffic study and preliminary signal plans, it was determined that we needed some additional work not originally contemplated in this work, specifically additional design for drainage to construct a second left turn lane from Glen Ridge Connector onto Meridian Mark Road. The traffic studies indicated that there was sufficient infrastructure to accommodate left turns from Glenridge Connector onto Meridian Mark. This additional turn lane available within the existing right-of-way would improve that traffic condition and enhance safety as well, getting those stacked vehicles out of the through lane and now into a dedicated turn lane. So drainage design associated with additional pavement for that turn lane. providing subsurface investigation for installing new signal poles and mast arms as we replace these signal poles and mast arms here. Do they work up front to identify the available location for those foundations for those mast arms so that we don't have a delay in the field later when a contractor may find some utility or some other obstruction in the way? And additional services to update the signal timing database for each of these intersections along the way. With that, staff believes the cost for the services requested in the amount of $68,899.85 are adequate or appropriate to provide the design work for this additional work to improve these four intersections and recommend support of Change Order 1. You've heard the report of the Public Works Director.

What's the desire of Council?

Mayor Powell.

Ms. Ford.

I move to approve Agenda Item 2026-139, a resolution to approve Change Order 1 for T-7256, Glenridge Connector Traffic Signal Upgrade Project.

Got a motion by Ms. Ford. Is there a second? Second. A motion by Ms. Ford, seconded by Mr. Chinsky, that we approve Agenda Item 2026-139, a resolution approving Change Order 1 for T-7256, Glenridge Connector Traffic Signal Upgrade Project. Any discussion?

Mayor Paul.

Ms. Ford.

Marty, I have two questions. One is, this is all work that is for the design of the project.

That's correct.

And when it gets to actually doing the work, where do you expect that funding to come from?

Right now, we, Kristen, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe we're looking at T-9500? T-7000. T-7000, excuse me. Okay, T-7000. So a recurring capital program that we have for that work.

Thank you. And the second question is, I noticed the four intersections that were on the map, but the Glen Ridge and Johnson Ferry intersection was not included. Is there a separate project that will be aimed at that intersection? That's also one we've had a lot of feedback around safety issues and pedestrians.

Yes, and again, I'll look to Ms. Westcott. Kristen, I think we've got that project contemplated in T-Splust. Yes, ma'am. So separate, slightly different set of challenges over with that intersection at the other end. We're looking at a focus on that currently. Moving that one forward, PCID is performing a traffic analysis at that intersection and form further studies we want to undertake there. So a little different situation. Some other studies underway there to evaluate that one as we move forward with that one.

Thank you.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on Agenda Item 2026.139, Resolution Approving Change Order 1 for T7256, Linridge Connector Traffic Signal Upgrade Project. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. The clerk will please read the next item.

This is agenda item number 2026-140, consideration of a resolution of a renewal term to the agreement with Central Square Technologies LLC and to authorize the city manager to execute the renewal documentation. This is presented by Micah Patrick, who's the director of our CIU unit. Ms. Patrick.

Good evening, Mayor and members of Council. Before you tonight, for your consideration, is a resolution of a renewal term to the agreement with Central Square Technologies for the period of July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2027. It is the recommendation of City staff that Mayor and Council approve the FY27 Software Support Agreement with Central Square Technologies LLC in the amount of $235,135.81. and authorized the city manager to execute the renewal documentation. In June of 2007, the city of Sandy Springs entered into a licensed program support agreement with Central Square, formerly SunGuard HTE Inc., to provide a records management solution for the Sandy Springs Police Department. Central Square One solution now serves as the department's core records management platform, supporting the entry, storage, retrieval, and organization of incident, accident, arrest, citations, investigative reports, property evidence, and documentation, and related case information in a centralized format. Searchable environment under this renewal the city will continue to receive support software support maintenance services and upgrades for the public safety and justice solution ensuring uninterrupted operation of the one solution environment in accordance with the city's purchasing policy this agreement is a renewal to the existing master agreement with no change to the underlying term structure and and does not require new standalone procurement. Additionally, the annual renewal amount exceeds the city manager's purchasing threshold. Therefore, the item is being presented to mayor and council for approval and for transparency regarding ongoing costs for this core public safety system. Although formal competitive procurement is not required for this renewal, the purchase will be made using source well contract number 030425-CNSQ with Central Square Technologies LLC, consistent with the city's purchasing policy, authorizing cooperative purchasing to meet competitive procurement requirements. The FY27 renewal amount is $235,135.81, and funding is allocated in the proposed fiscal year 27 budget with an effective date of July 1, 2026. Mayor and council may decline to approve the software support agreement, which would result in loss of access to vendor maintenance, support services, and upgrades, which may adversely affect the performance and reliability of the department's core public safety records management system. And mayor and council may also provide alternative direction to city staff regarding next steps for supporting the department's public safety records management software needs.

All right, you've heard the police department's proposal. What's the desire of council?

Mayor Paul.

Mr. Paulson.

I move approval of agenda item 2026-140, resolution of a renewal term to the agreement with Central Square Technologies LLC to authorize city management to execute the renewal documentation.

Motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second? Second. Motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Roberts, that we approve agenda item 2026-140, resolution... Renewing the term to the agreement with Central Square Technologies LLC and to authorize the City Manager to execute. Any discussion? Mayor Paul. Mr. Paulson. Do we renew this every year?

Yes, sir.

Okay. All right. Mr. Patrick, I'm not familiar with Sourcewell. Is that like the federal and state contract? Is it, you know, have they changed the names on me, or are we buying this under a state contract, federal contract? What is SourceWell?

It's a cooperative purchasing agreement. So it's like we used to have Western states. Right. We have a different name now. So SourceWell.

I figured that was the case, but I just want to make sure because I was familiar with all the other procurement.

Yeah. Cooperatives.

But not with that one.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is on agenda item 2026-140, resolution of a renewal term for the agreement with Central Square Technologies, LLC, and authorizing Cedar Manager to execute the renewal. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The item is approved. Moving to reports with just a handful of little things. The Sandy Springs Leadership Academy applications opened June 1st. For those of you who wish to participate in that particular program, classes will begin in mid-September and end in March of 2027. I know I've already had people inquiring about when the enrollment process will begin, so that's it. June 1, we will open it, and you can apply online for that particular program.

We encourage people to apply quickly. Those spots fill up very quickly. So it's first come, first serve.

All right, thank you. A couple of three other items. We have had another meeting on the SDS, the service delivery strategy, with the mayors and the staff. We're down to a handful of issues. One of those clearly is water. Hopefully we'll have some meetings with Atlanta. They've promised meetings. They've given us a date, but they haven't given us a time or location. Oh, is that right? Since we've been here, huh? Oh, okay. Well, I'm all ears waiting to hear what those changes were. Also, the city manager may want to refer to some of the staff changes that have occurred in senior management over the last week or so.

Yes, sir. I am pleased to let you all know, formally and officially, that effective Thursday the 21st, Fire Chief Keith Sanders will be no more, and he will now be Assistant City Manager Keith Sanders. So congratulations to our soon-to-be Assistant City Manager. And in the fire department, I am also pleased to let you all know that Jesse Bernard will be serving as our interim fire chief. So thank you, Chief Bernard. And we're excited to have him in that capacity as well.

It's been brought to my attention that apparently our fire chief must have no hair.

That is a requirement. I've added that to the job description.

Okay. Just wanted to make sure. So anybody wants to work in a senior position in the fire department has to shave their head. Also, one last thing for me is the concert Friday kicks off our summer concert series on the green. We've got Sister Hazel coming. It's a fun summer of concerts on the green as well as Heritage Green. And so we're expecting a nice crowd Friday night. Hopefully we'll cooperate. And so I look forward to seeing everybody there. That's it for me. Anybody else? Ms. Mueller.

So I had the honor of standing in for the mayor and the mayor pro tem to honor the Sandy Springs Garden Club. They just helped them celebrate and recognize their 85th anniversary. They've been part of this community doing beautification, community pride and preservation. So I just wanted to make sure that we recognize that. Yes.

Thank you for standing in for me and the mayor pro tem. I had the North Fulton mayors were getting together talking about the service delivery strategy, and I hated to cancel on those fine folks, but I thought that it was very important that I be there. So anybody else? Mr. Chinsky.

Just say a quick congratulations to all of our graduating seniors from all of our different high schools around Sandy Springs. There's lots of graduation ceremonies happening last weekend, this week, next weekend. And it's awesome to see where our kids are going to end up. As we approach summer, just a reminder to everybody to stay safe. If you need the police, call the police. Don't be hesitant to call. I know summer can sometimes get a little bit interesting around here. But we're here to help. So please do not hesitate to call 911. I hear from a lot of people, oh, I don't want to bother the police. No, they're here for our assistance. So please do that. And congratulations again. Anybody else?

Mayor Paul.

Ms. Ford.

And to the point of summertime safety, I believe that the police department is also sponsoring their e-bike class that is on Thursday, June 4th. Information is on social media. So thanks to the police department for helping us be more aware of e-bike safety.

Yeah, we've had a very bad accident. And right through my neighborhood the other day, there was a young man on one doing exactly, what had happened to the young man who was so very, I mean, he saw the look on my face and he immediately put it down. I don't know, I guess I don't know what my look was, but it sure was at least one of horror having gone through that and talked to some of the family members of that young man. that was injured, so it's very important. These bikes can be very dangerous. I know they're a lot of fun to ride and so on, but we can have some very serious injuries with them, and that safety issue, and I appreciate you bringing that up. Anything else? All right, Ms. Carlisle, talk to us about the money.

Good evening again. This is the summary for the March 2026 on Audited Financials. We're at 75% of the fiscal year. Revenues are at 95.72% and expenditures are at 63.08% of the budget. All departments are operating within the budget. I wanted to point out that the interest summary for the current fiscal year plus three prior fiscal years is located on pages three through five of the financial report. And also, the budget amendments approved by the PFA can be found in Fund 360 on pages 47 and 48. Some things are obvious today. Others will be obvious in May. The 419.540 is obvious, as well as the $900,000 for the contingency. But the adjustments for the overage for the debt issuance or the debt service payment will not be obvious until May once all payments are shown in the ledger. This concludes the financial report for March 2026.

Any questions of the CFO? All right. Thank you, Ms. Carlisle. We do need an executive session for the purpose of real estate and litigation. Is there a motion to suspend regular order and move into executive session?

Mayor Paul. Mr. Paulson. I move that we suspend regular order and move into executive session for the purposes of real estate and litigation.

A motion by Mr. Paulson. Is there a second?

Second.

A motion by Mr. Paulson, seconded by Mr. Roberts, that we suspend regular order and move into executive session for the purpose of real estate and litigation. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question's on the executive session. All in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. We are in executive session. There will be no further business to come before us tonight. We will simply return to this room and return to regular order and immediately adjourn. Thank you very much.

Later.

Thank you.

Yeah, so . Okay. Thank you.

All right. Hold on. Let me get to the right page. All right. Mr. Paulson moves that we end the executive session and return to regular order. Is there a second? Seconded by Mr. Roberts. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll call the question. The question is to return to regular order. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Opposed, no. Is there a motion to adjourn? Mr. Paulson moves adjournment, seconded by Mr. Roberts. All in favor, say aye. Opposed, no. We are adjourned at 9.20.