Staff member says county proceeded with administration building purchase despite antiquated 'county site' law

A Forsyth County staff member said the county closed on a site north of State Route 20 and adjacent to State Route 400 and immediately began design work for a long‑planned administration facility, but flagged an old Georgia law that could limit where formal board action may occur.

The staff member said the county reviewed five or six potential properties before shortlisting and purchasing this parcel, and that planning and programming for the facility date to about 2016–18. "We closed on the property and immediately went to work on designing what had been programmed for a number of years prior," the staff member said.

The central legal issue, the staff member said, is an "old 1800's law on the books in Georgia" that references the county site — effectively the county seat — and requires that the county conduct its business there. "So what exactly did occur there?" the staff member asked, describing that the county attorney was consulted and provided follow‑up to staff and commissioners before the county moved forward with the contract related to the site.

The staff member argued the law is antiquated and poses practical barriers to making government accessible. "You've heard me say this before. Henry Ford has come along since then and we now have vehicles. ... now we even have Starlink, we can get the internet from space, right?" they said, adding that the new site offers easier parking and access for many residents.

Despite the legal question, the staff member said the county decided to proceed because formal board meetings will only account for a small portion of the new building’s daily activity. "This building ... only accounts for less than 1% of the daily activities that are going to occur in this building," the staff member said.

The staff member said the county pursued legislative changes but did not secure a change to the general law. They said other counties around the state faced similar constraints and that some counties chose to continue operating where they were without legal change. "We were not the only person in the state that was dealing with this," the staff member said, noting several counties had the same issue.

For the near term, the staff member said the board will continue to hold its official meetings in the existing boardroom (the county will use the same room it uses now for the first and third Thursdays at 5:00 p.m.). The staff member said the sheriff would hold that room for training and meetings and that the county will revisit the legal and legislative options going forward.

No formal vote or recorded board action on changing the meeting location is noted in the provided transcript segments. The staff member described consultation with the county attorney and legislative outreach as the steps already taken; the staff member said the county "decided to move forward" with the facility contract despite the open legal question.

Background: the staff member said planning for the administration facility began around 2016–18 and that the county considered multiple parcels before acquiring the current site.

The county’s next procedural steps, as described in the transcript, are continued consultation with legal counsel and continued efforts to address the statute by legislative means; in the meantime, the board will use its current boardroom for formal meetings.