City Council members sharply questioned the handling of a facade-grant award during the meeting, centering on an open-records email from City Manager Jones that described routing $20,000 through a nonprofit intermediary.

Several members said they learned the award letter had been sent by staff before the council had formally approved all contract details. Councilmember Shropshire pressed staff for the name of the Georgia Municipal Association contact who advised the approach and said the central issue was council approval: "Regardless of whether it's coming out the general fund, it still has to be approved by council," she said.

City Manager Jones told the council the facade award letter had been issued after the ARPA funds originally intended for the program were exhausted and that general-fund dollars would be needed to fulfill the award. "The award has been approved, there's been no rescinding of the letter or the award," he said, describing the practical problem of completing projects after ARPA dollars were spent.

The city attorney cautioned that routing money from the general fund to a third party triggers charter procedures governing transfers. "If the money is going from the general fund and go to [the intermediary], then that would have been a transfer that is governed by section 5-103(d)," the city attorney said, adding that such a transfer would require an ordinance and that simply designating a third party to manage funds would not remove legal risk tied to the state's gratuity rules.

Council members noted competing concerns: several favored a remedy if staff sent a mistaken award letter, while others warned that establishing a general-fund–funded facade program would require a vetted process open to all applicants to avoid favoritism. Councilmember McClellan asked for clarity on amounts and mechanics; staff and the email on the record described the award as up to $20,000 with the recipient responsible for a 25% share (roughly $5,000), leaving an estimated $15,000 reimbursement component, though staff said some details remained to be confirmed.

Members asked the city attorney to prepare options for council consideration: a narrowly targeted ordinance transferring a one-time $20,000 (if that is the council’s decision) or a more formal ordinance and program framework to govern future general-fund–funded facade grants. The council also requested the scoring, contract and award documentation that staff had used when award letters were sent.

No ordinance or final council action on the transfer was taken at the meeting. The city attorney said an ordinance to transfer funds could be drafted quickly but that a program-level proposal would require more work and legal review; councilmembers discussed scheduling that work for a coming work session.

Next steps: council requested legal drafts and supporting documentation; the matter may return to an upcoming work session for formal consideration and, if desired, a vote.