Atlanta Ends $910K Referendum Consulting Deal as “Cop City” Petition Collapses in Court

Atlanta, GA – The City of Atlanta has terminated a controversial consulting contract that paid a former city clerk roughly $910,000 over more than two years to prepare for a referendum process that never happened — the latest twist in the long-running fight over the city’s Public Safety Training Center, widely known as “Cop City.”

The contract, awarded to former Municipal Clerk Foris Webb III, was intended to support the verification of petition signatures tied to a ballot effort seeking to repeal the ordinance authorizing the training center. But because of ongoing litigation — and, ultimately, a federal appellate ruling blocking the referendum — the signature review process never began.

Now, with the referendum effort effectively stalled in court and the training center nearing completion, city officials say they are tightening oversight of outside consultant agreements.

The $910,000 Question

Webb’s agreement paid him $35,000 per 30-day period, regardless of whether the verification process was actively underway. Over approximately 26 months, that totaled about $910,000.

Critics have questioned how such a large contract operated without a firm end date or clearly defined deliverables. City leaders have also acknowledged uncertainty about who initially authorized the arrangement and why it remained active while the referendum was tied up in court.

In announcing the termination, City Attorney Marquetta J. Bryan outlined reforms aimed at preventing similar situations in the future, including clearer contract terms, spending caps, and regular oversight reviews. The issue has fueled broader concerns about financial accountability at a time when the city has already spent millions on legal fees and litigation related to the training center.

How the Referendum Unraveled

Opponents of the training center turned in more than 100,000 signatures in an effort to force a citywide vote to repeal the ordinance approving the project. Organizers argued they had gathered more than enough support to qualify. But the city declined to begin verifying signatures, citing disputes over filing deadlines and the proper legal mechanism for such a referendum. The conflict moved quickly into federal court.

Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the type of ordinance at issue could not be repealed through the referendum process used by organizers, effectively blocking the ballot effort.

That decision left thousands of signatures uncounted and rendered the consulting contract moot.

Construction Continues

Meanwhile, the training center — backed by the nonprofit Atlanta Police Foundation — has continued moving forward. Supporters argue the facility is essential for modernizing police and emergency response training. Opponents contend it represents an expansion of policing and object to its location in the South River Forest area.

Despite the legal battles, construction has progressed, and portions of the facility are nearing operational use. The court ruling significantly narrows the path for opponents seeking to halt the project through electoral means.

A Political and Procedural Reckoning

The contract’s termination comes as city leaders face scrutiny over both fiscal management and public transparency.

For critics, the $910,000 payout symbolizes a breakdown in oversight — paying for a process that never occurred. For city officials, it underscores the complications of navigating high-stakes litigation, public pressure, and evolving legal interpretations.

The episode also raises broader questions:

• Should consultant contracts tied to litigation-dependent processes include automatic suspension clauses?
• How should cities handle petition drives when the governing legal framework is unsettled?
• And what safeguards ensure public funds are protected when political conflicts spill into the courts?

As Atlanta moves forward, the referendum effort appears legally closed — but the political debate over the training center, and the governance questions surrounding it, remain very much alive.

For Spotlight Atlanta, this story is less about one contract and more about the intersection of democracy, litigation, and accountability in one of the city’s most contentious public projects.