Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 2080 Intergovernmental Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors debate restructuring long-standing '2080' intergovernmental agreement over Cedar Lake oversight
Summary
Supervisors discussed whether to update or dissolve a decades-old intergovernmental ("2080") agreement involving Chickasaw County, the Conservation Board and the City of Nashville that concerns Cedar Lake; board members questioned the council’s funding, authority and compliance with current law and asked staff to gather documents and consider revisions.
The Chickasaw County Board of Supervisors spent substantial time on Sept. 3 reviewing a decades-old intergovernmental agreement (referred to in the transcript as a “2080” agreement) among Chickasaw County, the Chickasaw County Conservation Board and the City of Nashville concerning Cedar Lake and watershed-related activities.
Multiple supervisors said they could not find minutes or a clear paper trail showing the council had performed required duties such as preparing annual budgets and that the agreement’s language may be outdated. One supervisor recommended reworking the agreement to comply with current statutory citation and governance expectations and to clarify whether the advisory council can hold or contract for funds. Another suggested appointing a small committee to review and, if necessary, disband or reconstitute the council so Nashville can proceed with projects.
Speakers raised practical questions: who owns the dam, whether grant eligibility justified conservation involvement historically, whether the Army Corps of Engineers would need to be involved for any work on the water body, and how to secure insurance or bonding for contracts. Several supervisors proposed that Chickasaw County and the city coordinate to rewrite the agreement with clear charges, responsibilities and budget reporting requirements before appointing new members to the council.
No final decision to terminate or rewrite the agreement was recorded; board members volunteered to look further into minutes and to coordinate with the city and conservation board. Several supervisors (including named first‑name roll-call participants) offered to serve on a working group to review the document and return with proposed language or next steps.
