Hoschton moves to develop Mulberry Park; councilwoman says $500,000 grant is at risk if city delays

Council member Christina Brown told a town-hall meeting that Hoschton plans to develop a five-acre “Mulberry Park” and expects to put the project out to bid this month, but she warned the city faces losing a $500,000 matching grant if work is not begun before the grant’s 2026 expiration.

“We are literally giving away a half a million dollars if we don't get that,” Council member Christina Brown said, describing the grant and a $1.25 million estimate she has been given for the park’s core elements.

Brown said the city has budgeted about $750,000 toward the Mulberry project for the next fiscal year and that roughly half the project’s cost—$500,000—would come from a matching grant. She said the estimate for the work (amphitheater, two play structures and walking trails) is an early figure and that the project will go out to bid in the coming month; if bids exceed the combined grant and budgeted amount, she said the city could pare or phase elements to stay within available funds.

The Mulberry site is part of a larger contiguous set of properties that includes land the city bought from the Blankenship family. Brown said the original Mulberry parcel was about 6.78 acres before about 2 acres were set aside for interim parking, leaving about 4.78 acres for park development; the Blankenship addition adds roughly 15 acres, which Brown said would create a larger central green space when combined.

Brown framed the park project as a response to survey results from the city’s comprehensive plan process showing parks and green space as a top resident priority. She also described the city’s park-impact-fee program (established in 2020) and how collected fees have been used: she said the city collects a per-dwelling park impact fee (stated in the meeting as $935 for non–age-restricted new homes and roughly $700 for age‑restricted units) and that those fees can be used only for land acquisition or capital improvements expected to last at least 10 years. Brown said impact-fee revenues must be encumbered or spent within six years of collection or refunded to the developer.

Brown described how impact fees were used to pay the down payment on the Blankenship purchase and to fund about 15.5% of the land for the planned municipal complex because that portion will remain green space. She said the Mulberry acquisition and initial work have been funded largely from impact fees and owner-financing arrangements for the Blankenship tract.

Residents at the meeting pressed the council for more planning before committing to construction. One attendee urged the council to “wait for the city planner or whatever you wanna call them,” saying, “Don't get yourself in a situation where few years from now, we'll be here saying it was the other council's fault.” A long-time local realtor who addressed the meeting cautioned that development involves multiple infrastructure elements — water, sewer, roads and utilities — and said developers “are interested in 1 thing and only 1 thing. How many houses can I get on that acre of land?”

Speakers raised practical questions about downtown parking and maintenance costs. Brown said two acres of the Mulberry parcel, if simply paved for interim use, could yield roughly 280 parking spaces; with existing parallel spaces she cited, that would total about 314 spaces. Other participants noted published estimates for a three-level parking deck in the area near Mulberry that one attendee described as about $5 million.

Meeting participants also discussed several other land‑use items tied to park supply: a multiuse path connecting Peachtree Road, segments behind the Enclave apartment development and White Street, the Oak Street pocket park (about 1.78 acres, with stream buffers that limit heavy equipment), and larger conditional dedications included in past rezoning for the Uline property—13.8 acres adjacent to ball fields and an 80% dedication of a floodplain area the meeting record described as about 69 acres. Brown cautioned that much of the Uline-related acreage is contingent on future development triggers (for example, construction of a specified number of residences or the certificate of occupancy for the first warehouse), and she said the city does not control those timelines.

Brown acknowledged past council actions: she said the council has previously voted to accept the park grant and to use impact fees for park acquisitions and that the Mulberry plan has been approved in earlier votes and reaffirmed at a council retreat. She also reviewed recent costs tied to the Mulberry House—roof replacement costs of roughly $14,000–$17,000 and a later demolition she said cost about $50,000—and said prior property purchases had procedural shortcomings that complicated later work.

Brown offered to circulate the presentation slides and follow-up details (including updated acreage figures for certain developer parcels and final cost/bid information) to residents who requested them by email. She said bids will be used to finalize how much of the planned work can proceed in the budget window and that, if necessary, project elements can be phased.

What happened (formal actions): the council previously voted to accept the $500,000 grant and to use park-impact-fee funds for acquisitions; the city purchased the Blankenship tract under an owner-financed arrangement and has scheduled the five-acre Mulberry project to go out to bid. What remains undecided: final construction contracts (pending bids), any rephasing of park elements, and outcomes of future rezoning or negotiations tied to developer-dedicated parkland (including the Uline site).

Next steps include the public bid process this month, council budget action next year to commit roughly $750,000 in city funds, and continued planning discussions with residents and (per several speakers’ requests) with a land or city planner to refine long-term downtown strategy.

Tina Brown said she would email updated slides and answers to written questions to residents who requested them.