The Haymarket Town Council on Dec. 19 approved motions to restore and renovate two historic properties around town, though questions remain about whether the council followed proper procedure to reach its conclusions.

With the mayor breaking two tied votes in favor of renovation, the council is also set to host a public hearing on Jan. 10 designed to seek input about whether either or both of the buildings should be demolished instead.

If it appears that the motions conflict with each other, they do.

Council member David Leake made separate motions on Dec. 19 to set aside $150,000 for renovation of the Hulfish House and $200,000 for the Old Post Office, commonly referred to as the Red Rooster because of an old business once at the house.

Leake, council member Mary Lou Scarbrough and vice mayor John Cole voted for the renovation plans. Council members Bob Weir, Jay Tobias and Milt Kenworthy voted against them, citing the unknown actual costs of the renewal plans as a major reason for their objections.

Mayor Pam Stutz broke the 3-3 tie in favor of Leake's proposals both times.

She said the council had previously informed its citizens of the intent to spend money on renovations when offering tax refunds during the last year.

"This vote would have been counter to what we said we were going to do," she said.

As for what is ultimately going to happen, that is still up unknown and the legal arguments involve a plethora of code, procedure and parliamentary rules.

Tobias and Weir laid out in-depth cases in interview for why they believe Leake’s motions were legally out of order and that Tobias’s motion was proper.

However, Leake and his supporters are operating with the upper hand given that the town attorney and mayor sided with them.

Given that there were four votes for renovation on Dec. 19, it is unlikely that any future motions supporting demolition would be approved by a majority of the six-member council and mayor.

However, the town still has yet to receive public input regarding demolition, which is scheduled for Jan. 10.

That's because, after a back-and-forth between members on Dec. 5, the council approved on a 3-1 vote a motion by Tobias for there to be a public hearing in January.

Town attorney John Bennett said that motion was invalid because there weren't enough council members there, the mayor agreed, and David's motions followed on Dec. 19.

Yet Tobias’s item is still going to be on the agenda this month even after the full council, on 4-3 votes, passed measures supporting renovation on Dec. 19.

"I don't think David's motion is a valid procedure," said Tobias, also mentioning that he thinks Bennett misinterpreted the rules in favoring Leake.

"There's a huge procedural issue here," added Weir.

According to Weir, the fact of the matter was that at the Dec. 5 meeting, the council had enough members present to call a quorum.

"Their loss, not mine," Weir said about the two absent council members.

Leake disagreed and sought input from the town attorney, which Bennett sent to him in an e-mail.

"It is a fundamental requirement of a governing body that members receive prior notice of a substantive item to be considered at a particular meeting," wrote Bennett. He later added that "renewing the question of demolition was not properly before the Council" at its Dec. 5 meeting, "and that no vote should have been take authorizing advertising at a public hearing."

Tobias, Weir and Bennett all cited Robert's Rules in reasoning their arguments.

Weir did so in a four-page missive to the mayor dissecting his rationale for why he thought actions taken by the council on December 19 were out of order.

Intensive on procedural minutia, he argued that just because "several councilmembers elected not to be present at the meeting is a circumstance for which they bear sole responsibility and should not diminish the actions taken by a legitimate vote of a body with an established quorum."

Regardless so how the legal wrangling plays out, there is significant damage to the exterior and interior of both buildings.

Neither side disputes that.

What they dispute is whether it's worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix the houses.

Leake's side says yes and that potential tenants are already expressing interest in moving into the houses.

"This is Haymarket, this history," said Leake. "I don't see it as one of those money pits."

Weir wants a completely fresh start.

"Burn it to the freaking ground," he said of the Hulfish House. "We don't know how much it's going to cost" to renovate.