Statesboro city officials are moving forward with a proposal to use $300,000 of interest earned on federal ARPA funds to build two replacement homes for qualifying homeowners, after council members expressed disagreement last week over whether the decision was appropriately made with a vote during a previous "work session."

The city in March launched the first, $2.5 million phase of a housing rehabilitation program to which the mayor and council have earmarked ultimately $5 million total from the $12.3 million the city was allocated under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2020. To be eligible, the owner-occupants must have annual household incomes less than 80% of Bulloch County's median household income for each family size. 

In Phase 1, homes eligible for major city-contracted repairs — or now possibly in some cases complete replacement — must be in the Johnson Street neighborhood the city government and its consultants have identified as in greatest need or be homes with major deficiencies at "scattered sites" in other neighborhoods.

Originally, the program was to pay a maximum of $50,000 for repairing a home, and homeowners remaining in their homes for five years after the work is done would have the costs forgiven. The money the city pays a contractor to have the work done will take the form of a forgivable loan to the homeowner. 

But during a May 16 mayor and council "work session," City Manager Charles Penny reported that, after 83 applications were received, a large number of the homes were expected to exceed the $50,000 cap on repair costs.

Also, 11 homes in the Johnson Street area had been recommended for demolition. Reporting that the ARPA funds, awarded in 2021, had meanwhile earned roughly $500,000 in interest, Penny recommended that the council consider using at least $300,000 to fund two replacement homes.

"We know we have the interest, and we also have homeowners that are sitting there waiting patiently," he said. "We've got emails from folks, like, it's raining in the house and they don't have any other means, and would probably be one of the candidates that we would pick."

That was during the "work session" public meeting that began at 3 p.m. May 16 before the 5:30 p.m. regular voting meeting that day. City Council, whose regular meetings are at 9 a.m. the first Tuesday and 5:30 p.m. the third Tuesday of each month, often holds a "work session," at varied start times, before the 5:30 p.m. meeting.

But the Georgia Open Records Act does not differentiate between meetings this way, so the work session is also a public meeting, and the city clerk issues notices for the session as an open meeting.

Work session

During the work session, Penny asked "for direction," but mentioned a motion and suggested it could be made in the regular meeting. But Mayor Jonathan McCollar said, "Let's go ahead and get this over with."

District 3 Councilmember Venus Mack made the motion, District 2 member Paulette Chavers seconded, and District 4 member John Riggs and District 5 member Shari Barr joined in the 4-0 vote.

In the minutes, City Clerk Leah Harden recorded that Mack's motion was to "use $300,000 in ARPA interest funds for two replacement homes."

District 1 Councilmember Phil Boyum, who arrived late in the session, was absent from that portion where the ARPA interest was discussed.

June 6 discussion

But when City Council held its 9 a.m. June 6 meeting, "Discussion regarding work session procedure" appeared near the end of the agenda under "Other Business from City Council." The mayor and four council members were present; Mack was absent due to illness.

No new motion or vote was taken on the use of ARPA fund interest for two replacement homes. 

However, Boyum had objected to the previous vote's having been taken during a work session rather than during a regular council meeting, and Barr had also expressed concern so as to have the discussion placed on the agenda.

Penny spoke first, saying that the city officials "are very careful not to violate the open meetings laws," but that the council could vote any time three or more members are present at a meeting for which public notice has been given. 

"For me as staff, as your staff, I simply asked for direction from you, and the motion actually gives me the direction I needed in order to be able to move forward," Penny said. "Now, what that motion did — we're not going out and actually taking any action — it is actually going to come back to you for final approval."

Staff members were sending the council members recommendations for policy changes that would be on the next agenda, he said. So that would apparently be for the 5:30 p.m. June 20 regular meeting.

Procedural objections

"Look, I understand that anytime three of us get together that we have the ability to make decisions for our city, but I also realize that we have an obligation to let our citizens know, as well as our council members, when these types of decisions are going to be made," Boyum said. "So when you have a business meeting, an agenda of an official meeting where all of these people show up, this is where we make policy decisions."

Boyum said he "felt a little bit like" Penny had "pushed" the decision through at the previous meeting when he wasn't there, knowing that Boyum would have objected, and also said that keeping decisions in business meetings helps maintain public trust. 

The mayor defended the previous action,

"I think we need to be clear about this," McCollar said. "Making decisions in work sessions is something that cities across the nation do. We're not crafting policy in these work sessions. We've never passed an ordinance at a work session, and when you talk about policy, immediately I think about ordinances."

But the mayor and council members can "direct the staff to take a particular action," during a work session, "and that's perfectly fine," he added.

McCollar said the city government "has been extremely transparent" during his tenure, through many town hall meetings and information sessions, and that he would not advocate making policy during work sessions.

However, Barr also expressed misgivings about the May 16 vote.

"It did feel different to me," she said. "I've only been on the council three and a half years and attended for a few months before that, but it felt different to make a motion and the majority approve it from just the staff asking for direction and three people nodding their heads. … If we're going to make a difference about taking votes on things in a work session, then we all need to know that we're making that change."

Riggs said he thought the council "had come close" to making policy decisions in work sessions. "We haven't done it, but we've come mighty close to it," he said.