Commissioners vote to move forward on IGA termination notice for development authority after concerns about transparency

The Clayton County Board of Commissioners approved an item to remove a previously scheduled agenda matter relating to the county’s intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the Clayton County Development Authority. County counsel told the board that taking the action would start a required window connected to notice of termination and preserve the board’s ability to negotiate new terms while the IGA remains in effect.

During a lengthy discussion, commissioners said they had asked the Development Authority to provide documentation requested during earlier joint meetings and a retreat — including financials and an executive director hire — and had not received those materials. Commissioner Elena Reeves said the board had asked for audits and executive-level information and had not received it.

County attorney (Mister Reed) told the board that the agenda item under consideration was not termination for cause but to provide notice of intent to terminate. He explained the calendar consequences: giving notice would start a six‑month window, during which payments and other obligations under the existing agreement would continue but the termination process would be underway. “The item on the agenda is really to provide notice of an intent to terminate … there's a 6 month window that once you give them the notice, it cannot be terminated until at least not for, if it's for cause, but that's not what this is for,” counsel said. He added that negotiating changes would still be possible while the notice period runs.

Why this matters: If the board moves to give notice to terminate an existing IGA, a statutory or contractual notice period can limit the county’s immediate ability to end payments or obligations and starts a fixed timetable. Commissioners said the goal was to regain leverage to renegotiate the funding mechanism and other terms with the Development Authority.

Action taken: After discussion the board voted to approve the agenda motion to remove item 25 (the item concerned the IGA/termination notice); the vote was recorded as "ayes have it" in the transcript and the chair stated the motion had passed. Counsel and staff reiterated that the effect of the Board’s action was to trigger the notice process and that existing obligations under the IGA would continue while the board and the development authority negotiated.

Next steps: Board members said they wanted to use the notice and the intervening months to renegotiate terms, seek additional financial documentation from the Development Authority, and attempt to secure more favorable payment arrangements. Staff and counsel said the termination-notice action does not preclude further negotiations; commissioners said they expected to pursue negotiations in the coming months.

Ending: The board left the IGA in place while setting in motion the notice/renegotiation pathway described by counsel.