Voters will soon decide whether to re-elect District 3 Council Member Alexis Weaver or elect newcomer Sam Ulrich. Rough Draft sent both District 3 candidates a list of three questions about their backgrounds and the topics that Tucker residents are most concerned about as they travel the campaign trail.

Below, Alexis Weaver and Sam Ulrich share their answers, which have been edited for length.

Alexis Weaver

Email: alexis@alexis4tucker.com
Website: www.Alexis4Tucker.com

1. What led you to run for office?

I decided to run for the Tucker City Council in 2021 because I couldn’t stay silent when our city passed an urban camping ban that criminalized people simply for being unhoused – despite wide community opposition. As a nonprofit leader focused on stakeholder-led decision-making, I’ve spent 20-plus years helping cities work to end poverty and improve the lives of people with disabilities. During my campaign and throughout my first term, I have advocated for stronger partnerships with DeKalb County and with regional and local service providers, pushed for the creation of a homelessness and mental-health coordinator position to connect unhoused residents with services, and called for a city-convened coalition that brings nonprofits, faith groups, and businesses together to address the root causes of homelessness. I saw the potential for Tucker to grow into a community where everyone can thrive, and I believed my experience could help make that vision a reality.

Those motivations still guide me today. I’m running for re-election to continue providing inclusive, experienced, and creative leadership for District 3 and the city as a whole. Over the past four years, I’ve helped pass a non-discrimination ordinance to protect LGBTQ neighbors, led efforts to make Juneteenth a city holiday, prioritized accessible housing options and smart zoning, and invested in parks, trails, sidewalks, and public safety.

Tucker is at a turning point. As we shift from establishing basic services to implementing our many plans for housing, economic development, transportation, and trails, I want to ensure that we carry out these plans in a way that honors our diversity and keeps Tucker a welcoming city for everyone.

2. What concerns are you hearing most from Tucker residents right now?

The number-one topic I hear about is housing. Neighbors want to know how we can keep Tucker a place where people of different income levels, ages, and abilities can live, work, and stay – while preserving the character of our neighborhoods.

Housing accessibility and affordability affect everyone in our community. When housing costs overly burden renters and homeowners, families have less income to spend locally. We need a variety of housing options for seniors who want to retire, adults with disabilities seeking independence, and average-income workers in Tucker – teachers, police officers, nurses, and others. That’s why I’ve championed gathering the local data we need through our 2023 Housing Study and brought ULI Atlanta to Tucker this past spring to help identify best practices and policy recommendations most applicable to our city.

Our next step as a city is to work together – as a council and with a community-based housing task force – to determine which areas to address first, such as streamlining existing codes and policies, while also identifying strategies for longer-term solutions, including participation in the DeKalb County regional land bank to transition abandoned properties for redevelopment. We must recognize that there are many paths forward to increase housing options for people who are already living, working, and engaging here.

Another frequent topic I hear about is sustainability. From protecting our tree canopy and old-growth trees to creating safe routes for cyclists and pedestrians to access downtown without a vehicle, residents want more options to help make Tucker a more vibrant, connected community. Some of these solutions are straightforward policy changes that simply require the political will to enact. Others demand a more thoughtful approach to funding and infrastructure – which is why I made sure to include “bikeways” as a funding category in our most recent SPLOST II referendum.

3. What are your plans for the campaign over the next few weeks?

Over the final weeks of the campaign, I plan to continue listening and connecting with constituents while also fulfilling my responsibilities as a sitting council member. I’ll be present at our city council meeting on October 27 at 7 p.m. to conduct the business of the city. I’ll also be attending neighborhood meetings, community forums, and civic-organization events.

You’ll see me and others encouraging early voting – reminding neighbors to take advantage of the opportunity to vote early at the Tucker-Reid H. Cofer Library, ahead of Election Day on November 4. Above all, my goal is to ensure that every District 3 resident knows their voice matters and that I’m ready to continue working alongside them for another four years to build a more inclusive and thriving Tucker.

Sam Ulrich

Email: samfortucker@gmail.com
Website: sam4tucker.com

1. What led you to run for office?

I decided to run in an effort to keep the culture of collaboration forefront and, hopefully, to help it become an integral part of the city’s fabric. It is my goal to create an open channel of communication, both between the public and council, as well as between other council members, so that ideas (even differing ones) can be expressed. While not every idea can make it into final results, it is important for them to be heard.

I am hoping to inform the voters about projects before they are up for a vote, and use direct feedback to hopefully improve the way the council communicates complex ideas, and motives, behind some large-scale decisions. I am also hoping to help steer Tucker development by helping to simplify the code and lessen our dependence on SLUPs [Special Land Use Permit].

2. What concerns are you hearing most from Tucker residents right now?

The main things I hear about are: How do we continue to drive economic activity (including housing developments) in a way that keeps Tucker growing, but maintains the close neighborhood feel? How do we address public safety issues, and not only ensure businesses and people are safe, but also ensure that they feel safe? How do we deliver on our city charter, while also continuing to improve existing services, in order to provide every Tucker resident with relevant programs that build community?

I want to continue to invest in our parks and recreation and community programming. Tucker has become synonymous with wonderful events and offerings for people of all ages, with the Summer of Fun, rec sports leagues, summer camps and regularly scheduled activities reaching far outside of Tucker to bring people into the city and help them experience the small-town feel that this city of almost 40,000 has been able to maintain. These programs keep our community well-connected and drive the neighborhood feel that a town of our size can sometimes lose. It also helps keep Tucker safe, as a well-connected community is always a safer community.

3. What are your plans for the campaign over the next few weeks?

Face-to-face time is everything. With this election being limited in scope, turnout in general is going to be critical. I want to talk to as many people as possible, to both encourage them to go vote, and to make sure they feel like their voice is being heard. People need to know that their concerns are being addressed in a meaningful way, but also that their hopes and dreams for the community are implemented as well. There are going to be so many events in the coming weeks, with people getting out on their own.

The post Rough Draft Q&A with Tucker City Council District 3 candidates appeared first on Rough Draft Atlanta.

Click here for the Tucker Election Guide.

The forums were hosted by Rahul Bali of WABE. Cathy Cobbs of Rough Draft and Delaney Tarr of SaportaReport were the questioners.

Watch the forums below or on our YouTube page.

City Council District 1 (Post 1)

• Roger Orlando | Campaign Website
• Karen Peters-Rivers | Campaign Website

City Council District 2 (Post 1)

• Patrice Cosby Campaign Website
• Cara Schroeder (story) | Campaign Website

City Council District 3 (Post 1)

• Sam Ulrich | Campaign Website.
• Alexis Weaver | Campaign Website

The post Watch: Tucker City Council candidate forums appeared first on Rough Draft Atlanta.

Key points:

• Residents at Tucker City Hall reviewed the results of a sound mitigation study that says Tucker Recreation Center isn’t the best place for pickleball courts.
• Henderson Park would be the best location, sound experts say.
• The city will explore other options at an undetermined date.

A resounding feeling of “finally” was heard as Tucker residents reviewed the details on the Pickleball Sound Mitigation Study at City Hall Monday, Sept. 29 that says Tucker Recreation Center isn’t the best location for the courts.

The public information open house took place just one week after Tucker City Council voted 6-1 against moving forward with a bid to build pickleball courts at the Tucker Recreation Center. The 68-page study completed by PSM Consulting detailed what sound mitigation measures would be required at Tucker Recreation Center and an analysis about locating the courts at Henderson or Rosenfeld parks. 

Rip Robertson, Tucker parks and recreation director, asked the council to kill the bid for Tucker Recreation Center, citing concerns about safety and liability issues.

Tucker resident Ivy Beaufort, who was one of about 20 people attending the forum, said she had been waiting for the city council to get more “creative” with their planning for the pickleball courts. After reviewing the study findings Monday, Beaufort is convinced that Henderson Park would be the best option for the new courts.

Related stories:
• Opinion: Tucker needs pickleball
• Tucker Recreation Center pickleball plan scrapped for safety, liability issues
• Letter to the Editor: We stand against the pickleball complex

“I think that the sound mitigation study was overdue,” she said. “Henderson Park, for me, always made sense. It’s already developed, there’s already a lot of space around it. To me it just made more sense in general. I hope they take the information and data that’s been provided seriously.”

While Tucker Recreation Center would’ve required the installation of 12- or 14-foot barriers to reduce sound levels, Henderson Park would not require mitigation, considering its 125 acres is surrounded by underbrush and mature trees and has about a 300-foot distance from neighboring homes.

PSMC offered a digital display and several poster board presentations for residents to review, which was affirming for District 3 resident Vicki Warren. She had been one of many complaining to her representative, Council Member Alexis Weaver, about the lack of transparency about the pickleball courts plan. She lives a few homes away from Henderson Park. The vast amount of space at the park and limited noise pollution makes it her pick for the pickleball location.

“To me I’m like ‘cut the check,’” Warren said after reviewing the study. “There will be more room for parking, it’s so far from either side of the houses, except for the ones right around the entrance. The tennis courts have been there forever, so they’ve dealt with some noise.”

Robertson said that Henderson was not originally considered due to the existing tennis courts, but his ultimate plan for the recreation program is to implement smart growth that won’t be costly or cause major traffic or parking issues for those utilizing the facilities.

“I’m hoping that we find a successful solution to what we do at the rec center,” Robertson said Monday night. “We’re going to go back to the drawing board, and listen to the community and see what we can do.”

The full PSMC Tucker Sound Mitigation Study findings are available here.

The post Tucker residents feel sense of relief after pickleball bid is halted appeared first on Rough Draft Atlanta.

Key Points:

• Parks and Recreation Director Rip Robertson said staff recommended not moving forward with the bid process at Tucker Recreation Center because of safety and liability issues.
• Tucker will still move forward with a public meeting about a sound mitigation study on Sept. 29 from 6-8 p.m. at city hall.
• The sound study found that expanding courts at Henderson Park would have the least impact on homeowners in the area.

In yet another surprise twist, the Tucker City Council at its Sept. 22 meeting voted 6-1 to kill the bid process for a 12-court pickleball complex at Tucker Recreation Center – but not for the reasons that have bitterly divided the community.

Mayor Frank Auman made the motion after the panel listened to a two-hour presentation made by representatives from Pickleball Sound Mitigation Consulting, who had been hired to do a study about the effects of pickleball noise at Henderson and Rosenfeld Parks, as well as the Tucker Recreation Center.

The study, among other recommendations, said the installation of 12- or 14-foot barriers around the TRC courts would effectively reduce sound levels emanating from courts to 52 decibels.

A surprise recommendation

After the presentation from PSMC’s Dale Van Scoyk and Braxton Boren, Tucker Parks and Recreation Director Rip Robertson told the council that “staff is recommending not moving forward with this project.”

“The PSM recommendation would eliminate any sidelines, creating a safety liability issue for the city,” Robertson said.

Auman clarified Robertson’s remarks, saying “even if sound mitigation was sufficient, the parks department doesn’t want it, at whatever price, for safety and liability issues,” which Robertson affirmed.

The measure passed 6-1, with Council Member Vinh Nguyen the lone dissenting vote.

Nguyen, who spoke after the presentation and before the vote, said he believed that the “safety situation is a little overblown.”

He also said while he respected the viewpoint of the Morgan Road neighbors, who have claimed the noise from the courts would disrupt their lives and well-being, he didn’t think that “it would have affected them.”

He also angered attendees after he asked the room to be silent for a minute, and then rapped his knuckles on a desk, and said “that is 50 decibels, [and the sound] once every couple of minutes – that’s what we are dealing with.”

Rebecca Gross, representing residents who opposed the complex, said the “6-1 vote to pull the directive, from the June 9 meeting to city manager, to put the May 2025 design out to bid was a critical and important step in healing the division caused by this controversial proposal.”

 For that we are grateful. Tucker is grateful,” Gross said. “We look forward to Tucker meeting the growing demand for pickleball courts in a fiscally responsible manner that poses ZERO threat to the quality of life of any resident or our neighborhoods.”

Study: 12- to 14-foot sound barriers needed at TRC

In its 66-page report regarding the 12-court plan at the TRC, PSMC said if no barriers were put in place, “the raw pickleball sound emitted by the courts is predicted to exceed 60 dBA [decibels] at the northern residences, and to reach higher noise levels to the south.”

Related stories:
• Opinion: Tucker needs pickleball
• Tucker Council votes to open bids again for pickleball complex
• Letter to the Editor: We stand against the pickleball complex

“The 10’ northern barriers in the May 2025 plans would mitigate noise from some court positions but leave direct sound paths from other positions on the courts, particularly to the residential and commercial properties to the east, where noise levels are predicted to remain well above the target limit,” the report said.

Even erecting a 12-foot barrier, which would cut off sound to the east and west of the courts, sounds would still exceed the target limit of 52 decibels by 1-2 decibels.

The report recommended fully enclosing the east court with 12-foot barriers on all sides, increasing the height of the center court’s northern barrier to 14 feet, reducing the number of courts on the northern dual-use tennis court and rotating their orientation by 90 degrees. However, while the changes will reduce levels to the north and south, the report predicted it would increase levels to the east by six decibels.

Regarding Henderson Park, where the city is evaluating the conversion of four existing tennis courts into dual-use courts for both pickleball and tennis, the proposed area is located at least 300 feet from existing homes with no direct line of site from the courts to the homes.

“A buffer of mature trees and vegetation separates the residences from the racquet/paddle court area, which is situated 30’ to 75’ higher in elevation than the surrounding homes,” the study said.

The footprint area of four tennis courts would comfortably support play on up to 12 pickleball courts, while still keeping the tennis nets in place, it said.

“When adjusted for elevations, directionality factors, and other parameters, the modeling software predicts that maximum sound levels will be at or below the conservative target limit of 50 dBA without the addition of sound mitigation barriers or other attenuation measures for any or all of the planned courts,” the PSMC study said.

Consultants say Rosenfeld Park ‘not the best place’ for courts

In regard to the Rosenfeld Park, where renovations to four existing tennis courts are planned, there has been discussions about converting “the four tennis courts into three tennis courts and parking, plus consideration is being given to adding pickleball as a dual-use feature on these courts,” the report said.

The company’s sound assessment and resulting recommendations considered the non-summer months when a nearby pool would not be in use, which when busy, masks sounds coming from the courts.

Nearby homes to the proposed courts vary in distance from less than 100 feet to within 300 feet, with current pickleball play clearly audible in many backyards, the report said.

The site plan PSMC used for evaluation calls for one pickleball court on each side of the three tennis courts with six pickleball courts, aligned north-south.

Modeling results indicate that achieving compliance with the target sound level at
the second story of homes would necessitate a barrier height of approximately 22 feet, the report said. Increasing barrier height to 16 feet “likewise proved ineffective due to reflective sound paths propagating over the barriers.”

“Based on the findings, it is recommended that pickleball courts not be constructed in accordance with the current design,” the report said.

Van Scoyk said Rosenfeld Park, “to put it bluntly, is not the best place for pickleball.”

City will still hold public meeting Sept. 29

After the vote, Amy Trocchi thanked PSMC for providing “tone and perspective to an issue that has fractured our very good community.”

The possibility of a future pickleball complex, however, is still on the table, possibly at another venue. Officials will hold a public information meeting at city hall Sept. 29 from 6-8 p.m. where representatives from PSMC will be on hand to answer questions from attendees.

Auman said the city will continue to seek solutions to address “a great demand for pickleball” at a city-owned park or another venue.

Gross said the anti-pickleball group and other Tucker residents have questioned “why it has taken all of this division and controversy to convince you that installing 12 pickleball courts so close – in  some cases less than 100 feet – from our homes might not be such a good idea? Especially considering the fact that the recommended extensive sound mitigation measures would significantly drive up the initial cost?”

The post Tucker Recreation Center pickleball plan scrapped for safety, liability issues appeared first on Rough Draft Atlanta.

The authors of a study about forming a dedicated Tucker police department held a public forum about the study on Sept. 9, attended by a crowd that seemed receptive to the concept.

The forum, sponsored by the Tucker Civic Association, featured presentations by
Northlake-Tucker CID Executive Director Matthew Lee, and Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police executives Dwayne Orrick and Ed Densmore.

The $45,000 study, commissioned by the Tucker-Northlake CID in January with funding from groups that included the Tucker Summit CID, Tucker Civic Association, Tucker Business Association, and Tucker Main Street Alliance, “analyzed two years of 911 dispatch data, interviewed business and civic leaders and compared Tucker’s current policing structure with those of neighboring cities,” according to a release from the Tucker-Northlake CID.

At the Sept. 9 meeting , Lee said that of the 67 cities in an 11-county region, 79 percent of them have local police departments, and that the study looked at recently established departments, especially Dunwoody and Brookhaven, when comparing response times to 911 calls.

According to Lee, the time to dispatch after a 911 call in Brookhaven was a little more than a minute. In Dunwoody, it was about one minute and 30 seconds, and for DeKalb, seven minutes and 37 seconds.

Densmore, a former police chief in Alpharetta and Johns Creek, said he felt that the 12-hour shift model would work best for Tucker, as opposed to DeKalb’s 10-hour overlapping shift “to maximize man power and zone integrity.”

The study estimates that a city-run department could be launched for about $10.7 million, which includes salaries, vehicles, technology, and equipment. That number did not include several common elements of other city-run departments like K-9 units, drone equipment, or a real-time crime center.

Tucker property owners in 2024 paid DeKalb County $15.9 million in taxes for police services, compared to Brookhaven’s $15 million and Dunwoody’s $14.3 million. Both cities have larger populations than Tucker.

The study recommends hiring 53 sworn officers and 10 civilian staff in the first year.

Another problem that would be addressed by a dedicated department would be coverage area, the study said. The DeKalb’s Police Tucker Precinct currently serves 40 square miles, which includes areas outside city limits. A Tucker force would exclusively cover the city’s 20 square miles.

Lee said although he believed that DeKalb County Police its doing its best with its available resources, the understaffed department makes it difficult to service many areas of the city in a timely fashion.

“And remember, no man can serve two masters,” Lee said. “Officers are indebted to DeKalb County, not Tucker.”

Most of the questions asked after the presentation were mostly of a procedural nature, including ones about how training, courts, traffic enforcement, and partnership agreements with other jurisdictions would work.

In order for the plan to move forward, the Tucker City Council would have to authorize a referendum for voters to decide whether or not they want a dedicated police department. Then the city would enter into various Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) with DeKalb County and other jurisdictions. The study estimated that establishing the force would take 12 to 18 months.

The full study can be found here.

The post Police feasibility study discussed at Tucker Civic Association forum appeared first on Rough Draft Atlanta.