Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses for transparency after economic-development staff notifies businesses of facade awards; 31 grants cover $600,000 ARPA allocation
Summary
Economic-development staff told council that 86 applications produced 31 awards from a $600,000 ARPA-funded facade grant program; staff said four awards exceeded $25,000 and that some award amounts are less than applicants requested. Council asked for more documentation and moved the item to the Sept. 8 work session for further review.
Economic-development staff told the East Point City Council on Sept. 2 that the city received 86 facade-grant applications and has 31 awardees under a $600,000 ARPA-funded program, but council members voiced concerns about communication, award amounts and ward allocations.
Macio Rogers, director of economic development, said the program framework allowed the city to reimburse up to 75% of eligible façade work, with a program maximum application amount of $70,000 (the city share at 75% would be $52,500). Rogers said city staff used a scoring rubric and distributed funds by ward: $180,000 for downtown, and $105,000 for each ward A, B, C and D, with some remaining funds in Ward D to be allocated after consultation with Ward D council members.
Rogers told council that 31 awards were prepared and that four awardees exceeded the $25,000 threshold the mayor asked be brought to council for review. “We had $600,000 to work with from the start,” Rogers said. He described follow-up conversations with some recipients who were surprised by awarded amounts that were smaller than requested and who were evaluating whether they could scale back projects to match awards.
Council members raised multiple concerns: insufficient notice to council about specific award contracts, a lack of routing sheets showing legal review, apparent concentration of awards in downtown locations rather than neighborhood business strips, and one property that staff said was moved between wards after awards were prepared.
“I'm receiving constant contracts about awards that have not necessarily been approved by council,” Mayor Holliday Ingram said. Multiple council members asked for a complete spreadsheet showing all 86 applications, their scores, award amounts by ward, and identification of which award amounts exceeded $25,000. Staff provided partial spreadsheet detail during the meeting: 86 total applications, 31 awards, and statements that downtown recipients frequently received less than they requested because of the ward-based allocation method. Rogers said Ward C had fewer commercial properties and therefore two Ward C applicants received the full $70,000 award.
Council members recommended and the mayor asked that the item be placed on the Sept. 8 work session agenda so the council could review full application lists, scoring rubrics and routing sheets before contracts are finalized. The council directed the city clerk to place the item on the Sept. 8 work session agenda.
City staff said legal had reviewed contract templates but several council members requested individual routing sheets and legal confirmation for each award before any signature by council members. Staff also said some awardees did not accept the reduced award amount while others indicated they could scale projects to the awarded funding. City staff and the mayor discussed possible budget amendments to resolve allocation differences should a ward show an overage after corrections to ward assignments.
No contract signatures or final city approvals for individual grants were recorded at the Sept. 2 meeting; the council asked that staff bring full documentation to the Sept. 8 work session for further action.
