[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6645535,"mediaKeyId","3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40","parentId",3655829,"title","Commissioners debate $19.6 million year-end budget amendment; move item to June work session for deeper review","audioSeconds",2210,"startMs",3950000,"endMs",6160000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40&start=3950&end=6160","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40/thumbnail_3950000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6645535/Clayton-County/Georgia/Commissioners-debate-196-million-year-end-budget-amendment-move-item-to-June-work-session-for-deeper-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645535-78dfce5ad2d24f92ef97e5d66ef397ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437770&Signature=KLDCiCzRRqrG~U6HbLGYrj2FMUx8BEziGgNCo7eEmSdx8ArncDWoWTWrMDMIySgxAM42oPoa~qy1asJeSkYeqeDEK7pXaKHoX5VKoVlomjiCcLfej1zK1425pTf84sB1NGTBRBkcH0PsYLbmajXZZ3ZuPIi50-a0xARdURSGzGuMHHbCqno7sSFHuHFL90dSHK2Y6~~9MM3WJeK~j4ac8WoZS8hzBPYKP8TDifOCC~6dUDzl0v-Vure2aUzBUd8LJWJgd-ZZWGJ06k-CmAvkYq9q0srJOOD7D1q1cENPuw-fpubELpMV4636lxnhKBDTdMITnoUaahpRIKJqybL50Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Clayton County","date","2025-06-04T15:56:03Z","article","Clayton County finance staff presented a year-end \"cleanup\" budget amendment (Budget Amendment 2‑41) at the June 3 Board of Commissioners meeting that recognizes revenue and reallocates $19,555,903 across county departments to cover anticipated salary, benefit and other expenses through fiscal year end.

Finance staff explained that the item combines forecasted needs for the remainder of the fiscal year — payroll payouts, pension and benefit adjustments, election overtime and other accounts — and includes a $6,000,000 line for litigation claims and settlements the county cannot practically pre‑budget. The amendment lists dozens of line‑item adjustments across departments, including election overtime, multiple pension and group insurance changes, police overtime exceeding $1.9 million in the presentation, and various library and park salary adjustments.

Commissioners pressed for more transparency and detail. Commissioner Tasha Allen and others asked how the amendment would be prevented in future years, whether the dollars had already been spent, and why some accounts — notably large litigation and policing overtime amounts — had reached current levels. Finance staff said the amendment is a forecast through June 30 and not a retroactive draw on fund balance; they characterized end‑of‑year cleanup amendments as a recurring practice to avoid line‑item shortfalls. Staff further said that the amendment is funded from revenues received and reallocation within the fiscal year rather than from fund balance for this particular submission.

Commissioner DeMott Davis and others proposed an independent audit (forensic or external) of county financial policies and procedures; the proposition and a motion to link an outside audit as a condition of approving the amendment failed to secure a second. Another motion to approve the amendment as presented was made by Commissioner Hambrick and seconded; that motion passed on a recorded voice vote. After debate about whether to act immediately, the board agreed to add detailed discussion to the June 10 work session and to revisit the item again on June 17 so commissioners could review department‑level documentation and external audit timing.

Board action: after extended discussion and failed motions to condition approval on an outside audit, the board voted to move the amendment for further public discussion at the June 10 work session and to revisit it on June 17 for final action. The board instructed finance staff to provide more detailed backups and to be prepared to answer line‑by‑line questions at those meetings.

Why this matters: the amendment reallocates nearly $20 million across the county for payroll, litigation, election costs and other services at the fiscal year end; commissioners said they wanted more line‑item visibility and options to reduce recurring year‑end amendments going forward.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Clayton County Board of Commissioners Regular Business Meeting, June 3, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Finance presented Budget Amendment 2‑41, a $19,555,903 year‑end reallocation covering salaries, benefits, litigation and other countywide costs; commissioners asked for more detail and scheduled further review at a June 10 work session and June 17 meeting.","taxTitle","Clayton County, Georgia","taxId",12803,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6645540,"Clayton County commissioners direct staff to include jail as SPLOST level 1 project; further review scheduled",794,1698000,2492000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40&start=1698&end=2492","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40/thumbnail_1698000.jpg","/articles/6645540/Clayton-County/Georgia/Clayton-County-commissioners-direct-staff-to-include-jail-as-SPLOST-level-1-project-further-review-scheduled","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645540-e670a1ddedf7c944a42ea60d5aa534f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437770&Signature=ZaKqMHPLgfIIs5lJXyCtC3k9CUtxcF-TIg1FG0i2mNZg4HFyo627PfPXbBR8XSb62AXUl8MMD7-TkpOZ39e5h7SMOFdrJvk~kidajpx-GnmxnHOinJ-s-FA8vwUqyz2NTd3rJp6-nx0DKzNOb3qlM~~5vP5qGDXiGe3PleocQHye1LCAyvpbl~Sza9m-z78Mp33z~jmC8iZAtXzMjVXC67Hx0-oQlA5w~cWfFGXRqmAiHSKT2iJHBbjceR3kZ8TnVY~qRlk48P43V5S4dsInk8mofuYAtdY~oLZmQdbbx5dHwouzjAiySfb~luRFauCCzVopHpQf4K3vILtIezr72Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Clayton County Board of Commissioners on June 3 directed staff to proceed with preparing estimates for a level 1 SPLOST project focused on the county jail and asked staff to return with numbers and documentation at upcoming meetings.

Chief Mircherson (SPLOST staff lead) told the board the statutory timeline requires the county to notify municipalities soon so they can prepare project lists and that the county must make a final call no later than an August 5 target to meet elections deadlines. Mircherson said notices to cities must be issued by June 10 and that the statutory deadline for finalizing certain materials is June 23. He told commissioners he is working with county finance and department directors to arrive at a projected net revenue figure for a potential 2026 SPLOST and to show how any level 1 projects would be deducted \"off the top\" of that total, shrinking downstream allocations to cities.

Commissioners discussed which facilities qualify as level 1 projects — Mircherson listed the categories the county can classify as level 1: courthouse, administrative building for elected officials/constitutional officers, county or regional jail/correctional institution/detention facility, or a county health department facility. Several commissioners said the jail requires work and that courthouse repairs also merit consideration; one commissioner suggested the board could name two level 1 projects and later remove one if needed. Director Fox and the chief operating officer said they will put together prioritized lists linked to the county facilities master plan and noted previous SPLOST lists and unfunded items from the 2021 SPLOST.

The board did not adopt dollar figures at the meeting. Instead, commissioners gave staff direction to estimate dollar amounts for proposed level 1 projects (chiefly the jail and courthouse) and to circulate those allocations to municipal partners using the county's usual intergovernmental percentage splits. The board also added an additional SPLOST discussion to the June 10 work session to continue vetting priorities before a vote on any referendum language or final allocations at a later meeting.

The vice chair summarized the outcome as a consensus to include a level 1 jail project in staff's preliminary SPLOST worksheets and to continue the discussion at the June 10 work session so staff can meet the June 10 notice date to municipalities.

What happens next: staff will provide estimated level 1 dollar figures, begin vetting those figures with the county COO and director of finance, and present a circulated worksheet showing estimated municipal allocations under different level 1 scenarios. The board did not adopt a formal resolution or call a SPLOST referendum at the June 3 meeting; it requested further analysis and formal votes at subsequent meetings.","The Clayton County Board of Commissioners on June 3 directed staff to prepare cost estimates to include jail work as a SPLOST level 1 project and scheduled follow-up discussion for the June 10 work session.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6645526,"Votes at a glance: key outcomes from the June 3 Clayton County commissioners meeting",4092,3626000,7718000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40&start=3626&end=7718","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40/thumbnail_3626000.jpg","/articles/6645526/Clayton-County/Georgia/Votes-at-a-glance-key-outcomes-from-the-June-3-Clayton-County-commissioners-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645526-78a89ab05bf27d32210644319fe71c18/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437770&Signature=kn2PBTKvWq-I6A9GhdwhCYWy1BC7vwB5xA2paBL0kY51wgjZoeZFkN-2L4YXUmouKIviy7GefaQM71wZfft1zvlM8vrIJ7OFhIYeNmDByLSVVv94~0dOKX0kZlF4kO5R1STxvqo2FBZnuqu7dnzEg3ZarPmG8mxEa84~kigOBMdBIVjpb5~w30sWH3O~du~fItJwaCYY-LzBWjTfcs9P6eq6k-AYrwsgFZ4dehDEtoQhJ2WJtegSBdq0dnotYqzVYLGt4b5sOCa4R1tfcPlLcQ8fFvZrIjnOFymxR3oG7lsm9bDNht~4oqyDKF2DMxRaDrvqi68dJmcZ4F3eRj3NWw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Clayton County Board of Commissioners took the following formal actions at the June 3 meeting (items listed as they appeared in the agenda and staff presentations). Where the transcript did not record roll‑call vote details, the outcome is reported from the board's voice vote statements during the meeting.

- Contract award (Item 9, Recommendation for Award 25‑18): The board approved a sole‑source contract recommendation to NICE Systems Inc. (Hoboken, New Jersey) for digital evidence/discovery software for the District Attorney's Office. The total is not to exceed $634,462 over a five‑year term; the first‑year funding will come from state DA funds with later years from IT/general fund. (Outcome: approved.)

- Consent agenda: The consent agenda was approved by voice vote. (Outcome: approved.)

- Budget Amendment 2‑41 (Countywide departments): A $19,555,903 year‑end reallocation was presented and moved for approval after debate; the board directed finance to provide detailed backups and scheduled further discussion for the June 10 work session and to revisit the item June 17. (Outcome: board moved forward with amendment and required further review.)

- Budget Amendment 2‑42 (economic development fund, $300,000) and Budget Amendment 2‑43 (medical self‑insured fund): Commissioners voted to move both items to the June 10 work session for additional discussion; they were not adopted June 3. (Outcome: moved to work session June 10.)

- Budget Amendment 2‑44 (Sheriff's Office, $8,402,575 — emergency addition): The county presented an emergency amendment for sheriff's office expenses, including food/dietary services; the board approved funding for jail operations' food and medical service fees (as described in staff presentation) by voice vote. (Outcome: approved funding for food and medical services; full amendment presented as $8,402,575.)

- RFP 25‑14 (zoning rewrite): A motion to table the recommendation for award until June 17 failed for lack of majority; later attempts to move the item from consent to the regular agenda also failed. The item was not awarded on June 3 and remains pending. (Outcome: no award; item remains pending.)

- Appointments and personnel: The board appointed Ebony Michelle Brown to the Library Board to fill an unexpired term. In executive session the board also approved appointing Angela Jackson as interim chief financial officer, effective May 24, 2025, with an adjusted salary reported in the meeting packet. (Outcome: appointments approved.)

- Executive session settlements: After executive session, the board approved a settlement in Robert Bridal v. Dietrich Stanford (civil action) for $360,000 and a second settlement in a separate motor vehicle claim for $40,000; the clerk was authorized to amend the budget to reflect the settlements. (Outcome: approved.)

Votes on contested or debated items were taken by voice vote and recorded in the meeting minutes; detailed roll‑call tallies were not provided in the transcript for most items.

Where to find more: staff said detailed backup materials will be provided ahead of the June 10 work session and again before votes scheduled for June 17; those documents will include line‑by‑line detail for the larger budget amendments and the sheriff's emergency request.","The board approved a mix of items on June 3, including a five‑year contract for district attorney technology, several appointments, settlement agreements and funding for jail food and medical services; other items were tabled, removed, or sent to work sessions for further review.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6645530,"Commissioners debate zoning rewrite RFP timeline; motion to delay selection fails",352,675000,1027000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40&start=675&end=1027","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3655829-7b885f4ec7ff8ad0b5be9e57d4163d40/thumbnail_675000.jpg","/articles/6645530/Clayton-County/Georgia/Commissioners-debate-zoning-rewrite-RFP-timeline-motion-to-delay-selection-fails","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6645530-5d51de99d3a73f622e3141c1c85cb67f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437770&Signature=Y5Q7iR2AxeICiJU~gJ9xns91CV7PESrfkaUR8LZrkNFbHoyj~UcnW0iDqlzuNSINRccD7-lGoTzl-d5MZSe4JX~TGSMNqZ~QSnBD5RHKMmQMljKU9rFI08gkApshQ4sPXHf6lcq3uTqjrWRxU5klr2l7zrXCPHpACF6qsuURbiMRMJRSalY9YBWaVF-DhZYcSkpIqAkDlzBNLi3oyQAxn-G86njw24tbCf0tqtMBCquyhcp6iURrKDkf0qQfK08Y4XlEgq5xkvOxlGA5-jbZtFNO-Mma-Aqc32MmEQajndhKWSmFmXl~1ryJMAkk82bGwCqDlHs2L8dBZK8oLvhy8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A recommendation to award RFP 25‑14 (zoning code rewrite services) drew debate about timeline and process at the June 3 Clayton County Board of Commissioners meeting.

Community development and procurement staff told commissioners the zoning rewrite is a multi‑phase, multi‑hearing project that was already behind schedule; current procurement materials showed a projected January 2027 completion for the full rewrite if the procurement proceeds promptly. Staff said delaying the award would push the project further behind the metro’s schedule and undermine planned commercial‑footprint updates. Procurement staff said the proposal and scope of work had already been released and a vendor had been selected under normal procurement rules.

Some commissioners asked for more time to review the scope and ask questions of procurement and community development. A motion to table the recommendation for award to the June 17 meeting (to allow more discussion) was made and seconded but failed because it did not receive a majority of affirmative votes. Staff warned that tabling the item even two weeks would delay the kickoff and subsequent timeline elements; proponents of moving the award forward said the vendor kickoff and required hearing schedule meant the county needed to act promptly.

Separately, a later attempt to move the RFP item from consent to the regular agenda also failed. The board did not adopt the award on June 3 and the item remains scheduled for future board action.

Why this matters: the zoning code rewrite is a comprehensive effort tied to the county’s comprehensive plan and economic development strategy; delay could slow commercial‑footprint updates and related development initiatives.

Next steps: procurement and community development staff will be available for additional questions in the June 10 work session and will return to the board for formal action on the award at a future meeting.","The board discussed Recommendation for Award RFP 25‑14 (zoning code rewrite). Community development staff warned that tabling the award would delay an already late timeline and push the project further back; a motion to table to June 17 failed, leaving the award on the schedule for future action.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners debate $19.6 million year-end budget amendment; move item to June work session for deeper review

Clayton County commissioners direct staff to include jail as SPLOST level 1 project; further review scheduled

Votes at a glance: key outcomes from the June 3 Clayton County commissioners meeting

Commissioners debate zoning rewrite RFP timeline; motion to delay selection fails