Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arpa Reallocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cochran council votes down plan to reallocate $324,000 in homeowner grant funds for municipal renovations
Summary
The Cochran City Council voted against using $324,000 in ARPA funds—previously allocated for a roof, windows and doors homeowner grant—to renovate the municipal building after a 3–2 no vote following a mayoral tiebreaker; proponents argued renovations would create community space while opponents said the council had already approved the housing program.
Mayor Billy Yeomans and the Cochran City Council debated on April 8 whether to redirect $324,000 in American Rescue Plan Act funds from a homeowner roof, windows and doors grant program to renovate the east wing of the municipal building.
Council Member Carla Coley proposed the reallocation, saying the funds could be combined with about $90,000 remaining in the code enforcement line item and SPLOST 24 monies to finance substantial municipal renovations and make the auditorium more usable for community events. "We need to maintain city buildings and create community space," Coley said in urging the change.
Council Member Gary Ates and Council Member Lonnie Tedders opposed reversing the earlier decision to fund the homeowner program, saying the original program would benefit all three districts. Council Member Dianne Lester said she did not have sufficient information to support a change and abstained from the vote. Council Member Shane Savant supported Coley, noting city buildings also need upkeep and the auditorium could generate community and school benefits.
The motion carried two votes in favor (Coley, Savant), two votes against (Ates, Tedders) and one abstention (Lester). Mayor Yeomans cast a tiebreaking vote against the motion, producing a final tally of Yes: 2, No: 3, Abstain: 1; the motion failed.
Council members who opposed the reallocation emphasized that the council had previously approved the homeowner grant program with specific eligibility criteria and said reversing course would undermine public expectations. Supporters argued that investing in municipal facilities would serve broader community needs.
The council did not adopt an alternative plan for the municipal building on April 8. Council members directed staff to continue work on existing programs and to provide additional information; the issue may return to a future agenda if members pursue it further.
