Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McDonough council asks state lawmakers to OK higher court technology fee and create public‑facilities authority
Summary
The City Council voted unanimously Feb. 16 to send two resolutions to its legislative delegation: one asking the General Assembly to authorize an increase in the municipal court technology fee (from $5 up to $15) and another asking for statutory authorization to form a McDonough Public Facilities Authority to expand financing options for infrastructure projects.
The City Council of McDonough voted unanimously on Feb. 16 to ask the city’s legislative delegation to carry two resolutions to the Georgia General Assembly.
The first, drafted by the city attorney, would authorize the city to assess an increased municipal court technology fee. “Right now, you’re assessing $5; I asked for authorization through the draft…for $15,” the city attorney said, adding the council would not be required to charge the full amount but would have flexibility to do so. The attorney said the fee would apply only to convicted violators and could be used for technology or administrative costs tied to the court or public‑safety functions.
Council members pressed for clarity about how the fee would be characterized and who would pay. One council member asked whether a dismissed case would incur the fee; the attorney replied that it would not be assessed if the charge is dismissed.
The second resolution asks state lawmakers to authorize a McDonough Public Facilities Authority, a state‑enabled financing vehicle similar to urban redevelopment or development authorities. The city attorney said the authority would allow the city to issue revenue bonds, accept loans and grants, and use additional financing tools to support public infrastructure projects such as stormwater, water and sewer improvements.
“The recommendation from bond counsel is to put this in place to give more options for financing,” the attorney said, describing the authority as a way to secure lower interest rates and broader financing options. Council members asked about public transparency, board appointments and whether the authority would require separate meetings; the attorney said the statute contemplates public meetings and typical transparency exceptions (litigation, real estate, personnel).
Some council members requested more time to review the lengthy draft language before sending it to the legislature. One councilmember asked that future complex resolutions not be added to the agenda without time for review; the request was noted for the record.
Both resolutions were approved on voice votes recorded as 7–0. The council took no immediate action to create projects under the authority; the vote only authorizes the city to seek state authorization through its legislative delegation.
What happens next: If the General Assembly enacts the enabling language for the public‑facilities authority and the city’s delegation sponsors the measure, the council would then consider specific projects or appointments under that new authority in future public meetings.
