Hoschton council splits on Mulberry Park: proceed now to keep grant or wait for land‑plan input

Hoschton City Council spent an extended portion of its meeting debating whether to proceed now with a $2,433,927 bid for Mulberry Park (153 Mulberry St.) or delay for further planning.

Mayor (Speaker 1) and several councilmembers noted the city's original budget for the park was $750,000 and that a $500,000 grant had been expected to bring available funding to roughly $1.2 million. The lowest bid reported at the meeting exceeded that figure by roughly $1.2–1.3 million, prompting members to weigh immediate acceptance to preserve the grant against pausing to let the Atlanta land‑planner and 18 stakeholders finalize a master plan.

Those urging immediate action cautioned that delaying could risk the $500,000 grant and require refunding impact fees used to acquire the property. Councilmember (Speaker 4) said the project has already attracted tens of thousands of city dollars in design and advertising costs and argued, "I don't want to lose a half million dollars." Staff clarified that impact fees can be used to acquire park property and that the grant’s scope limits major changes to the area described in the grant documents.

Opponents of immediate acceptance said the current design may not fit the city's changing demographics and suggested the land planner could produce a different vision (for example, a smaller pocket park or added active uses) that could be less costly or more aligned with community priorities. One councilmember asked whether the city could run a "dual path" — continue grant procurement while the planner examines alternatives — or secure a short extension; staff warned re‑bidding would take months and that the planner’s work is not due until August, with a council review expected in September.

Public commenters were divided. Downtown Development Authority representative Jessica Martin urged the council to build the park now, arguing that "you can work around the little details" and that the park would generate immediate downtown activity. Other residents asked for a 30‑day deferral so stakeholders could assess whether the current layout could be incorporated into the master plan.

In the work session, councilmembers moved to table a final decision on the bids until the council’s March meeting to allow further stakeholder and planner input; staff noted bids are typically valid for 60 days and that the contractor might be asked to hold a price for an additional 30 days. The record shows motions both to accept the identified bid and to table; the council later took a motion to table the decision until March to allow more planning discussion.

Council also discussed practical tradeoffs — safety and accessibility for walking paths (mulch vs. slate chips vs. asphalt), ongoing maintenance costs, and the potential for surrounding development if the park is completed. Staff warned that if the planner proposes a materially different footprint it could jeopardize grant eligibility, but confirmed stakeholders will be able to comment during upcoming community outreach.

Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will confirm the bidder’s willingness to hold the price if asked, the land planner will continue stakeholder meetings and return with recommendations (expected in August), and council scheduled follow‑up consideration in March and a potential fuller council vote in September pending planner deliverables.