Clayton County board approves operator agreement to open Convocation Center despite budget concerns

The Clayton County Board of Education voted Feb. 7 to approve moving forward with a negotiated operating relationship for the district’s new Convocation Center, a decision proponents say is necessary to begin events and generate revenue but that drew objections from members worried about near‑term costs and impacts on employees.

Board Chair Benjamin Stringer called the special meeting and led a discussion focused on a draft agreement that staff and counsel negotiated with an outside operator (referenced in discussion as TRP). Counsel summarized key contract terms, including a standard representation-and-warranty clause, a 20‑day cap on board usage reflected in Exhibit B, and an Article 12 conflict‑of‑interest provision the district retained after negotiation. Staff and counsel said the district retains a right to terminate the agreement at the end of each year.

The superintendent, Douglas Hendricks, told board members the district faces immediate expense under the negotiated framework: ‘‘You have to pay $1,500,000 and in 2 point in 2 months, you gotta pay another $1,500,000. And then for the rest of the year, you have to pay about $50,000,’’ he said, framing those payments as the district’s obligation until the operator generates revenue. Hendricks also said some costs can be offset by pausing authorized vacancies or invoicing event organizers for production costs.

Several board members said those near‑term obligations create an unacceptable risk to district priorities. ‘‘I disagree with anything that takes away from educational experiences for our children,’’ said a board member who opposed the agreement, urging the board to use fund balance rather than divert funds that could affect employees. Another member warned that staff raises proposed at the state level could be hard to sustain if the district assumes large ongoing costs for the convocation center.

Supporters argued the convocation center offers both student benefits and revenue opportunities. District 8 board member Joy Telescooper said getting events and naming‑rights deals in place could reduce the district’s cash exposure: ‘‘The quicker they get money coming in, the less money we’re gonna put out,’’ she said. Proponents also noted the agreement allows the board an annual opt‑out if the partnership does not serve district interests.

After the superintendent presented two options — have the district act as the temporary operator itself or proceed with the external operator — a board member moved to accept the recommended path of contracting with the operator; that motion was seconded and the chair announced the motion passed with five yes votes, two no votes and two absences. The board then moved into executive session to discuss related land, legal and personnel matters.

The board asked staff for follow‑ups, including an itemized list of events and the hard costs associated with them (members sought line‑item estimates for graduation and other contracted events), clearer accounting for promised foundation activities, and confirmation of any staff positions that will be reassigned or require overtime during events. Several members asked staff to provide an itemized estimate of expected revenue and an updated projection of the district’s fund balance impacts before further commitments are finalized.

The meeting closed with those requests and a motion to move into executive session; the board indicated it would continue work on staffing, contract language and monitoring mechanisms before returning to larger business around the center.