Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Procurement Grants topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Savannah council denies $65,000 authorization for financial empowerment contract after members press for more local input

Savannah City Council · April 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Savannah City Council voted April 9 to deny authorization for the city manager to execute a $65,000 contract for community engagement on a financial-empowerment grant, citing insufficient local participation and questions about procurement and scope.

A majority of the Savannah City Council voted April 9 to deny authorization for the city manager to execute a $65,000 contract with Blue Knowledge (in partnership with E4 Progress) to conduct community engagement under a $100,000 Bloomberg Cities for Financial Empowerment grant.

Alderwoman Bernetta B. Lane Lenir, who led the motion to deny, said council members and community leaders who have long worked on wealth-building for marginalized neighborhoods had not been given sufficient opportunity to shape the project before staff issued the request for proposals. "I do not want us to get accustomed where the tail is wagging the dog and we're just sitting here signing off and voting on initiatives that we haven't had full participation in shaping the work around this," she said.

City staff described the procurement and the grant timeline. The city manager said the RFP was issued in November 2025, remained open for eight weeks and drew six respondents; two local firms were asked for best-and-final offers, and the recommended team submitted a $65,000 price during that stage. "We put out a RFP in November of 2025 for that work. It was out for eight weeks. We had six respondents," the city manager said in response to council questions about outreach and process.

Council members pressed for greater local engagement in designing the scope and for fuller transparency about how the RFP was evaluated. Several members expressed concern about the wide disparity among proposal prices and whether the lowest-priced response would deliver the scope needed in neighborhoods with high poverty rates.

After discussion, a motion to deny authorization for the city manager to execute the contract passed by voice vote. The motion instructs staff to return with options, and council members discussed directing staff to reissue the RFP with additional local engagement if desired; staff said reissuing would add roughly two to three months and could affect grant deadlines.

Next steps: staff said they would share the November RFP with council for review and said they would comply with whatever direction council provides about reissuing or modifying the procurement. The denial does not, by itself, cancel the grant award; rather it prevents the city manager from executing the recommended contract without further council authorization.