Senate Bill 7 would require Atlanta Detention Center be used by Fulton County; lawmakers and officials debate lease, costs and capacity

Senate Bill 7 (LC 47 31 88) was introduced for committee consideration as a measure to ensure the Atlanta Detention Center (ADC, also called ACDC in testimony) is available to Fulton County for jail use and to permit a long-term lease if a sale does not occur.

The measure’s sponsor and committee chair framed the bill as a narrowly tailored, practical fix intended to allow Fulton County to separate detainee populations — for example, moving nonviolent and medically fragile detainees to ADC while preserving Rice Street for other populations — and to avoid multibillion-dollar new construction estimates.

Why it matters: Committee members, city corrections officials and county leaders said they are wrestling with a complex mix of operational constraints, maintenance needs, costs and intergovernmental agreements. Proponents said using ADC could reduce violence and improve care by enabling single-cell housing and specialized staffing; opponents and some senators warned the bill reaches into local control and does not spell out contract details for maintenance, emergency outages or pricing.

Key points from the hearing

- Chair John Albers said the bill is narrowly tailored to ADC and Fulton County and described a common claim repeated during the hearing: that a large share of the tax base funding ADC construction came from Fulton County taxpayers. Albers said the bill would permit a sale or a long-term lease to the county and, if necessary, would require legislative action to enforce use as a jail.

- Senator Jackson and others expressed concern that the bill does not provide explicit contract or contingency language for catastrophes or maintenance outages. Jackson asked whether the measure contemplates portions of the facility being taken offline for repairs; the chair and sponsor said such operational details would be negotiated in a contract or lease rather than embedded in the statute.

- Senator Halpern and others raised local-control objections. Halpern noted that an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Atlanta and Fulton County currently provides access to about 700 ADC beds and asked why the state should intervene while city and county leaders are negotiating. The chair responded that the existing IGA has an end date and that a permanent solution was needed.

City and county testimony

Elder Dancy, who identified himself as the interim chief for the City of Atlanta Department of Corrections, told the committee the city and county have a working relationship and a multi-year IGA. Dancy said the IGA began in December 2022 and described it as a four-year agreement that does not expire until December 2026; he said the city had made roughly 702 beds available under the IGA and that current use has declined to roughly 360 beds provided to the county under that agreement. He warned that ADC was built for short-term, pretrial detention and described operational differences between ADC and Rice Street, including that ADC uses direct supervision in several units and that four housing units at ADC are currently inoperable for maintenance reasons.

“We have a great working relationship with Sheriff Labat and his team,” Dancy said, and noted unanticipated costs when Fulton County detainees remain in ADC for extended periods.

Fulton County officials testified that they have invested roughly $80 million in ARPA funds over three years to reduce case backlog, that total jail population has fallen from a May 2023 high of about 3,600 to below 2,500, and that Rice Street has about 2,200 beds with 500–700 beds typically out of service during renovation work. The county manager said use and staffing of ADC currently costs the county “about $7,000,000 in cost annually” and that Fulton County pays about $4,500,000 to Cobb County for housing detainees elsewhere.

Other operational details included testimony that ADC’s actual capacity was described by the interim chief as “a little over 1,300,” with an operating capacity the chief called about 1,185 and roughly 900 beds available at the time of testimony because four housing units were under maintenance.

No final action on the bill

Committee members took public testimony and debated the bill; they did not vote to advance SB7 during the session recorded in the transcript. Senators said they would continue hearings and take additional testimony at a subsequent meeting. Chair Albers and others invited stakeholders to negotiate terms for sale, lease or contract terms before the committee’s next hearing.

Ending: Committee members and city and county officials said they prefer to reach a negotiated agreement but expressed readiness to move legislation if talks fail. The committee recessed without a vote on Senate Bill 7 and scheduled continuation of testimony at the next meeting.