Mableton council expands URA boundaries, approves $6.7 million bond and two land purchases after heated public hearing

Mableton — The City of Mableton Council on July 16 voted to expand the city’s urban redevelopment areas and to approve amendments to the city’s Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) plan, and then adopted a bond resolution and intergovernmental agreement to finance potential land purchases tied to that plan.

The council approved expanding URA Area 1 and creating a new Area 2, then voted 4–3 to adopt the amended URA plan. Later on the same agenda the council approved a bond issuance and related intergovernmental agreement with a winning bid from Truist Bank to finance URA activity. During an executive-session follow-up the council also authorized the mayor to finalize two purchase agreements: one near 6084 Mableton Parkway (purchase price not to exceed $297,000) and one near Hicks/Concord/Brazos (purchase price not to exceed $5,500,000).

Why it matters: the URA is the city’s primary tool to identify parcels for acquisition and redevelopment to “combat blight” and attract investment. Approving the URA areas and the financing gives the city a path to acquire land and pursue future public-private projects; opponents said the measures came too soon given unanswered questions about municipal service costs and how debt would affect the city long term.

What the council approved and why

- Expansion of URA boundaries: Council members voted to expand URA Area 1 to include several parcels along Mableton Parkway (including the parcel that currently houses the city’s operations building) and to add a new Area 2 near the Silver Comet Trail. The council voted to consider and approve the resolution updating the URA areas; the motion carried with no recorded opposing votes.

- Amended URA plan: After a public hearing and debate, the council approved the amended City of Mableton URA plan (related to 2024 plan updates) by a 4–3 vote. The mayor emphasized the URA’s statutory role in combating blight under Georgia law and described the plan as a preliminary vehicle to allow the city to study and later propose specific redevelopment projects.

- Bond resolution and intergovernmental agreement: The council approved a bond transaction to provide financing for URA activity and property purchases. Director of Finance Ellis said the financing being pursued is roughly $6.7 million with a fixed interest rate of 5.25% and a 20‑year maturity; estimated annual debt service for the new bond is about $453,000 per year (the city will make semiannual payments). Ellis and city staff told council the bond payment is expected to be covered by revenues the city anticipates and that the city does not levy a local property tax (millage is 0.00).

- Land purchase authorizations (executive session): After executive session, the council authorized the mayor to finalize and execute substantial agreements for two purchases: (1) a parcel near 6084 Mableton Parkway for up to $297,000 and (2) land near Hicks/Concord/Brazos for up to $5,500,000. Those authorizations followed the earlier public debate and give the city authority to conclude negotiated purchases if terms meet the council’s stated limits.

What council members and staff said

Mayor Owens opened and moderated the hearing and repeatedly emphasized that the URA is a statutory tool to address blight and position the city to attract future investment.

Director of Finance Ellis (Director of Finance) said the city does not levy a property tax and that “nothing that we’re talking about at all is gonna raise anyone’s property taxes” while explaining how the city expects to use new and currently projected revenue streams to meet debt service. Ellis described the bond as a standard municipal financing with semiannual payments and confirmed the winning bank bid and rate were public information.

City Attorney (Madam Attorney) cautioned the council that the agenda actions approved areas and financing structure but do not themselves commit the city to a specific redevelopment plan; public hearings and additional council votes would follow for any specific project approvals.

Voices from the public and the concerns they raised

Dozens of residents attended the public hearing. Speakers who opposed the plan or asked for more detail included Hope Roper, Heidi Hunt and others who said they supported revitalization in principle but asked for clearer, written plans, maps and a full accounting of how debt service and any special service assessments or fees would affect residents and services (police costs were a recurring concern). Robert Redmond and others urged the council to clarify whether parcels within the proposed areas were actually blighted and to show the photos or maps used by staff.

Resident Christopher Brock urged the council, if it enters into partnerships, to limit tax abatements so the city recovers public investments promptly.

Council debate and timing

Council members who voted in favor said owning key parcels will give the city leverage to guide future development and enable public-private partnerships; supporters stressed that opportunity costs and timing matter in real estate and that audited city finances make the bond terms attractive.

Council members in opposition said the timing was wrong given pending county negotiations over services and a recently disclosed county cost estimate for police services; opponents said the city should resolve service funding and provide more granular plans, maps and financial detail before approving long-term debt and new land acquisitions.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution to update Urban Redevelopment Areas (12b): approved (aye vote called; no recorded opposition in the meeting transcript). Action: resolution to expand Area 1 and create Area 2. - Amended City of Mableton URA plan (12d): approved 4–3. Recorded oppositions named in the minutes: Councilwoman Herndon, Councilwoman Auk, Councilwoman Oladapo. Outcome: plan amendment approved; this enables future plan-specific hearings and project proposals. - Bond resolution and intergovernmental agreement (12e): approved 4–3 (same recorded oppositions). Key terms discussed in meeting: $6.7 million principal, fixed 5.25% rate, 20-year maturity, estimated annual debt service ≈ $453,000; semiannual payments with interest-only and principal/interest periods described during staff presentation. - Rezoning case 2025-001 (TKHC Ministries): second read and approved (rezoned from GC to R‑20 for a church). Outcome: approved, no recorded opposition during the vote. - Amendment to zoning stipulations for United Security Services (Z13 of 2009): approved; staff recommended and council adopted revisions and conditions. - Fleet vehicle purchase (Wade Ford): approved (resolution authorizing purchases consistent with the FY budget for an EV-first fleet procurement plan). Action: authorization to finalize purchase agreements and contracts with vendor; council was told the package is within the approved budget. - Executive-session authorizations (real estate): two approvals to authorize the mayor to finalize purchase agreements at prices not to exceed $297,000 (parcel near 6084 Mableton Parkway) and $5,500,000 (Hicks/Concord/Brazos area).

Next steps and follow-ups

- Staff said the URA plan does not itself set the final development program for any parcel. Any specific acquisition or development agreement will return to the council for public hearings and a vote.

- Director Ellis said staff will present details about bond closing, amortization and how projected revenues will cover annual debt service; financing requires discrete closing steps with the court, DA and bank.

- The council directed staff to continue public engagement, post maps and photos on the city website, and to provide more specific project-level information before any final commitments on redevelopment form or land use were adopted.

Bottom line: the council gave itself and city staff authority to move forward with an expanded URA footprint, a municipal bond to fund acquisitions and redevelopment, and two specific purchase authorizations. Supporters framed the steps as necessary to secure sites and leverage future investment; opponents said the city should first resolve immediate fiscal pressures and provide more project-specific transparency before taking on long-term debt.

Ending note: Several council members and staff pledged additional public briefings and posted plan documents to the city’s agenda portal during the meeting. The council also scheduled negotiations with Cobb County on service delivery issues that city leaders said will affect the long-term fiscal picture.