Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facade Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Point council presses city manager, attorney over $20,000 façade grant and whether council must approve transfer
Summary
Council debated whether a $20,000 façade-grant award—originally issued on staff letterhead and described by the city manager as routed via a nonprofit intermediary—can be reimbursed from the general fund without an ordinance. City attorney advised that a transfer from the general fund would require council action under the charter and warned of state "gratuity" constraints.
Council members on Monday pressed City Manager Jones and the city attorney for legal clarity after staff sent an award letter that committed up to $20,000 for a façade-grant project.
The dispute centered on whether the city manager could authorize reimbursement from the general fund after ARPA funds originally intended for the program were exhausted. "The funds generated for this program started out out of ARPA dollars. The ARPA dollars have been expended and the award letter had already went out," City Manager Jones said, explaining staff were trying to implement awards already communicated to recipients.
The question of authority prompted an extended legal explanation. The city attorney said an outflow of general-fund money to a third party would be a transfer governed by the City Charter and not a procurement, and "if the money is going from the general fund and go to Bridal, then that would have been a transfer that is governed by section 5-103(d"), the attorney said. She added that such a transfer would require an ordinance and formal council action.
Council members said they were concerned staff had circulated award letters to businesses before council approved the corresponding contracts. "The notion that the city manager can send tens of thousands of dollars to another organization without council approval is the issue," one council member said, noting the façade program originally ran on ARPA funds and moving to general-fund support would create a different process and fairness considerations.
Council member Shropshire framed the council—s role: "Regardless of whether it's coming out the general fund, it still has to be approved by council." The attorney and city manager both said they would work to clarify the mechanics of how to proceed; the attorney said she could draft a single ordinance to transfer $20,000 if council wanted that narrow action, but a general program funded by the general fund would take longer to draft and vet.
The legal discussion also invoked the state constitutional "gratuity" restriction on giving public funds to private parties without an identified reciprocal benefit. The city attorney cautioned that simply paying a private nonprofit or vendor from the general fund for a third party could raise gratuity issues unless structured with conditions or managed by an entity with a program and oversight.
No final award or ordinance was approved at the meeting. Council members discussed bringing a specific ordinance or program details to a December work session or the January meeting for further action. The city attorney recommended an ordinance (and any required MOU or conditions) be prepared so council could decide whether to authorize the transfer or pursue a different route through a board or redevelopment authority.
The council did not vote to transfer funds at the meeting; instead members agreed to continue the matter with legal and staff-drafted options to present at a future session.
