Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
East Point council debates FY27 budget direction after concerns about notice and deferred water projects
Summary
At a July special called meeting, the East Point City Council discussed policy direction for the proposed FY27 budget, including proposals to reprogram roughly $2.2–$2.6 million to restore programs and fund fire-station and water priorities. Councilmember Mitchell warned moving into reconciliation without proper notice could violate the Open Meetings Act; no budget votes were held and the council adjourned after procedural action.
Get email alerts on the City Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The East Point City Council met in a special session to give policy direction on the proposed FY27 budget and spent the hour-plus session debating what the meeting’s public notice allowed and which capital and operating items the council should prioritize.
Councilmember Mitchell told colleagues that the meeting’s notice—worded for “policy direction”—did not permit the body to switch into a line-by-line budget reconciliation. “If there's an attempt to move into a budget reconciliation discussion under a notice that only advertised for policy direction, that would be improper discussion,” Mitchell said, urging adherence to the Open Meetings Act and proposing that departments instead complete a pre-meeting questionnaire to limit in‑person presentations.
Mayor Pro Tem Sean Atkins and other members said they wanted to be responsive to residents’ priorities while recognizing the city manager and finance staff must preserve budget balance. Interim Finance Director Miss Cartwright told the council that municipal-option sales tax (MOST) revenue is shown in the budget and amounts to roughly $6.5 million, with specific GL allocations and capital project codes the director uses for designated or emergency work: “The revenue is 6,500,000,” she said.
Several councilmembers pushed to restore items removed in the proposed budget. Councilwoman Hemming presented a reprogramming sheet that she said would restore associate judge funding ($23,400), department education and training ($228,413), two grant-writer positions in finance, a $60,000 360-degree performance-review effort in human resources, planning-and-zoning capacity (including funding to add a chief building inspector), autism-awareness and parks funding, a small $6,011 line for a city 140th‑anniversary event, and about $400,000 for public-works corridor and litter improvements. Hemming offered a motion to reprogram $4,244,523 to fund those items and to add Fire Station No. 2 and water-reserve projects, but the motion failed for lack of a second.
Several councilmembers highlighted public-safety and infrastructure risks after a recent water-main break. One member reviewed capital items the budget defers—citing a roughly $16 million list of deferred projects in the budget book—and asked why pipe replacements ($900,000), booster pumps ($250,000), AMI meter improvements (reported in the discussion as a deferred modernization item), and other water-system investments were not prioritized. City Manager Jones cautioned that limited reserves and outstanding liabilities make the city cautious about committing to projects the city might have to carry if federal funding rules change; he noted a city policy target reserving $8.5 million for water and said the water enterprise’s reserves were well below that target.
After discussion about sources to fund restorations, Hemming moved to reprogram $4,244,523; no second was recorded. Another member later proposed reprogramming smaller amounts (figures discussed ranged from about $2.23 million to $2.58 million as members reconciled line-item math), and the council discussed including Fire Station No. 2 in a smaller reprogramming total. The transcript shows discussion and a restated motion but does not record a final council vote to adopt any budget reprogramming that night.
With little time remaining before a scheduled planning-and-zoning meeting and without a formal reconciliation vote on the FY27 budget, the council approved a motion to adjourn. The roll call on adjournment produced multiple ayes and noes and the mayor declared the meeting adjourned. The council scheduled further budget work for meetings noted in the record.
The meeting record shows: debate over the scope of this special meeting; a staff explanation that MOST revenues exist but are allocated to specific GL lines; council proposals to restore program and capital funding including water, fire-station renovations and planning staff; and no final adoption or amendment of the FY27 budget at this session.

