Good afternoon and welcome to our Cobb County Board of Commissioners work session this October 28th, 2025.

Today we have two presentations before us.

The first one will be to provide our 2025 code amendments, and that will be brought by our county attorney Debbie Blair.

So with that, Debbie, feel free to approach and help walk through the many updates and we do have many chapters are touched today.

Um Debbie Blair with the county attorney's office, and I'll be presenting the uh code amendments.

Actually, I'm really MCing only because we have subject matter experts that will be called forward.

We're going to take the amendments in numeric order of the chapters, with the exception of the uh changes to chapters 50, 83, 110, and 122, which comprise the stormwater utility, and that will be presented by Judy Jones last.

So if there are no questions on the process, I will ask Roger Ball to come forward and present the amendments to chapter two.

Thank you.

So I'll start with two dash one four one.

Uh we're making uh uh ancillary minor changes uh to this uh section.

Uh the first change we're changing our purchasing the uh procurement services, which reflects our official name that we uh made a couple years ago.

We are adding a list of uh exceptions, and these exceptions, by the way, are already included in our procurement policy.

So we're just bringing them over to the code, and that is uh come about as a recommendation from the uh county attorney's office.

We're adding actually actual adding references to state law, and that is also uh a recommendation that is coming forth from the county attorney's office, and we uh we think that's a good recommendation.

Um we'll go to section two hundred two.

Uh these are ancillary changes as well, plus one change that is uh substantive in nature.

Again, just like two-one four one, we'll change it per purchasing to procurement services.

And this makes it easier for future modifications.

This way, you know, as opposed to putting a dollar amount if we come to the board again with uh an increase dollar amount five years from now, we'll just change that uh in one area as opposed to having to change it throughout the document.

So again, that's kind of a format thing that was uh recommended by uh the county attorney's office.

And the last one, uh just like two one four two.

I'm sorry, 2-141.

It's the same thing.

We're adding references uh to uh to relevant state law.

And our actually our last one's that is our substantive revision.

And this is the one that we're changing.

Uh we want to change our seal bid threshold uh from 50,000 to 250,000, which is uh in line with the state of Georgia's public works construction law.

Um that change was made this year through the Georgia State's legislative process and uh they revisited that threshold, moved it from uh I think it was a hundred thousand to two hundred and fifty.

So we want to align ours with the 250 uh thousand threshold as well.

And I would say um that we reached out to a number of comparator organizations to kind of look and see what their seal bid threshold uh uh thresholds were.

Uh we looked at uh some leading edge uh organizations uh in the Southeast and mid-Atlantic area of the United States.

We like to benchmark Fairfax County, Virginia on a number of different things.

Uh they'll see a their seal bid threshold is 250,000.

Uh the federal government uh just one October this year moved their sealed bid threshold to 250,000 dollars.

While our comparative organizations here in the Greater Atlanta, about 90 percent of them at 100,000 already, they are pursuing through the through their legislative process to move it up to 250 as well to align with the uh Georgia State uh public works construction law.

So I know it appears like a big jump from 50 to 250, but it's because we have not changed our seal bid threshold in 19 years.

It's been 19 years since we've changed it.

And uh $50,000 was an appropriate threshold 19 years ago based on the uh effects of uh inflation.

Um hundred fifty thousand dollars is a new fifty thousand dollars based on the market uh that we're in.

And um I just want to take about uh one minute to talk about key benefits of this uh change.

Uh by moving the threshold from 50 to 250, it allows a greater number of number of purchases to be made using simpler, faster, and less burdensome procedures.

Um, and this allows us to get goods and services to our user departments quickly and efficiently.

Uh it also encourages encourages small business participation by reducing the complexity and administrative burden for routine purchases.

Uh small businesses, they are working hard to keep their doors open.

They're trying to grow their businesses, and so we want to create a procurement uh process that makes it easier for them to engage Cobb County without having without them having to develop burdensome complex requests for proposals, sealed bid responses based on goods and services that we consider routine.

You know, $50,000, like I said, 19 years ago is a very appropriate number, but $250 is become the the uh the new benchmark.

Um and the last benefit is certainly but not last but not least, it allows the board to apply greater focus on reviewing and and approving procurements with more strategic value and significance.

So those are the uh changes that we are proposing through code amendment, and um at this time I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

And Stephanie, I've asked Stephanie Bryce to join me as well to assist.

Thank you, Roger.

Does anyone have any questions, Mark Director?

Yes, Commissioner Campro.

I do, but I'm not sure if this is for Roger or for Debbie.

Um, Roger, I know you and I have discussed this, um, but my question to him was by raising this to 250, does this then change the county manager's threshold?

So if you could because I know you originally you said yes it would, but I guess my question just for verification.

Um, does it change the county manager's threshold that she can approve as of today?

As I understand it, you want me to handle this one, Debbie?

Actually, Laura Lori's Lori.

Lori's been working extensively in the policy as well, as well as the changes, so I'll let her speak to it.

So um the other part of the code that is often referred to as the state enabling legislation, sets the county managers at the formal sealed threshold.

That's what that is set at.

It's not set at a dollar amount.

It's set at whatever the formal sealed threshold is.

And that is state law enacted that was not being modified or proposed to be modified by this.

So that would also adjust to whatever the formal sealed bid limit would be.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Well, the answer is yes, but I guess you know, again, is I understand because it's within the budget, but I also understand Dr.

McMorris has the ability to do things, but up to that $50,000 threshold.

So now the question is is she goes up to 250?

Um, and is the board okay with that?

Because to me, that's that's a lot more money to make adjustments with that we don't necessarily see and can add up to and I do have an example because in an email that we just received, you know, I never knew that the county had spent 43,000 dollars for the veterans memorial in 2017.

There was no agenda item for it, there was no nothing, but that came out in an email earlier this week when we got the new MLU.

So this is where the county manager at that time essentially authorized for that 43,000 to be paid to that company to perform services, but as a board, there's no documentation of it until it just all of a sudden surfaced.

Because again, we've all been pulling or I've been pulling agenda items to try to fully better understand the veterans memorial.

So that is kind of my concern of again something like that now going up to 250.

Not saying you would do that, Dr.

McMorse, but again, it has been done in the past without the board's approval.

And to me, if the board in 2017 truly wanted the veterans memorial, they would have had no problem putting that agenda item forward and voting on it, but they didn't, it was done through the county manager because it was under $50,000.

So now the question is is what can be done up to 250 without board knowledge.

Okay.

So it seems as if you're sharing two issues, one the threshold amount being high, and two, the transparency to the board.

Do you have a suggestion as to how that should be addressed?

Well, and I know Bill's not here because he's got jury duty, but um oh, is he here?

Okay, sorry.

Um, you know, I know I've asked Bill in the past, you know, if if I could see a list of approvals that the county manager has made under the $50,000 threshold, and I was pretty much told, well, you have to tell me what department where to you know where to go because it wasn't easily seen.

So from a transparency standpoint, I would kind of like to know when the county manager is making these adjustments because again, we don't know does it affect the budget, etc.

etc.

But there's there's no way, and again, we have to trust Dr.

McMorris's judgment, but that is something that is not reviewed or audited or monitored from a fiscal responsibility standpoint.

Okay, Bill, yes, if you can help approach I have uh break day, so maybe tomorrow.

Um but yes, uh Commissioner.

So we have had that conversation as you know, Dr.

McMorris can approve purchases up to 50,000.

The catch is that obviously budget already has to be pre-existing to do that, so this cannot increase the budget.

But if it is within budget, Dr.

McMorse can approve that.

So that is where those purchases are difficult to see because obviously budget already has to pre-exist to do that, so it has to be within that purpose and already approved for that purpose.

Okay, there may be practice versus an ordinance to address transparency.

It may not necessarily address what's in an enabling legislation because that's already codified, but um addressing our practice around how we communicate expenditures as something that could be done short of an ordinance change, and that would address at least one of the two issues which pertains to transparency, and that can be done outside of this process.

That gets to the second question of whether or not the board would find it reasonable to change that other matter in enabling legislation, and there's a separate process beyond this quote amendment process to change enabling legislation if that is the will of the board.

I can share with you.

I serve on our water authority, and we made policy revisions to reflect the state code, but we did have a policy revision to limit the director underneath that threshold, and that was at his suggestion.

He perceived that would be too high of a jump for his discretionary spending.

But there may be differences in how our county manager board may feel it, and that's certainly a question I think that we can address.

But again, from what I'm hearing, if it's in the enabling legislation, this code amendment process may will not be the tool used to address that cap.

Okay.

Um last thing, Bill.

I and Dr.

McMorse, you can weigh in.

I know we do have some agenda items that do require us to ratify expenditures.

Can you share under what circumstances that occurs and if that addresses the issue of transparency?

Sorry.

Thank you, Chairwoman Board.

Sure, those are the ones that are emergency expenditures that I will have you ratify drainage failure, or if a department of transportation has an issue or procurement uh request from a department, whether it's parks or water or DOT or others, and uh those will come back for you to ratify the majority of the under $50,000 uh expenditures that I have authority of usually involve um police accidents or things like that, fenderbenders or whatever that are under $50,000 that generally comes from or deal, and or deal provides the justification for the accident or those kinds of things, and then I'll just sign off on them.

But the documentation and the justification is there.

Rarely, if ever a department comes for anything other than that because they have authority to manage their own budgets.

It is usually it within something that has to do with uh an accident or something like that from a uh police accident or something under 50,000, and I will sign off on those.

Is that right, Bill?

Absolutely.

Okay, can you oh I see your hand right?

I'm gonna say perhaps you can help us or help address transparency.

I don't know if this is a concern of other board members, would other board members desire to see some documentation with respect to those expenditures.

So I would just ask maybe you work with the commissioner, talk to board members offline about what that could look like.

Because you may already be tracking it in a way that can easily meet that interest.

Sure.

I'm happy to work with Ordale on providing whatever the board would like to see.

Um but it's those are the routine type things.

They're very rarely, if anything else comes over to my office other than those types of things, or if again if it's an emergency repair or procurement that has to be done immediately, and then those are ratified by the board.

Other than that, there aren't that many, but I'm happy to look at a quarterly update or monthly if you want that gets administratively challenging, but I'm happy to try to do that if that's what you need.

Okay, and I don't think we need to make a decision on that.

Okay, right here.

I'll walk the halls with each of you and maybe a way that can reasonably meet that need with what your current practice is today.

Sounds good.

Yes, thank you.

Um but the emergency orders that is for those over 50 that we have to ratify.

Um so we don't always see the under 50, but I think Commissioner Gambrill made a point, and we have we have trust that we do trust you.

Um, and an example where we don't have to approve the maintenance agreement with the Braves, we have a cap of 35 million, but the approval is for you to decide because you're the liaison rep with the Braves, and you always send it to us to look to review and see if we have any questions.

You don't have to, but you do that as an extra um precaution and transparency.

So thank you.

Yes, and that's an example of practice versus policy or what we approve.

Um via um board decision.

So yes, it's just ask again that there be that effort to uh address those two matters and commissioners.

If you have any comments, they'd also share that with the county manager.

Does that answer your questions, Commissioner?

Okay, thank you, Roger.

Thank you, Bill.

Thank you, Stephanie.

And chapter 10 will be presented by uh Steve Hammond.

Uh oh man.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, distinguished commissioners, madam county manager Steve Hammond for animal services.

Thank you.

I'll try not to break anything else.

Yes, making sure we're awake.

Yeah, that that was that was real heavy, so I'm gonna try to keep this a little lighter.

All right, that was we do ask for three changes this year for the amendments.

Uh the first is section 1051, which regards the membership of the Cobb County Humane Society.

Uh earlier this year we were notified by Atlanta Humane Society that they have absorbed or taken over the Cobb County Humane Society.

Uh as such, they would like to remain on the board with our animal services board and maintain that appointment.

So that first change is just to change the name from Cobb County to Atlanta Humane.

Okay.

Our second is for section 1067 for the period of impoundment and confinement.

And with the increasing numbers of animals entering the shelter system, overcrowd overcrowding is inevitable.

Uh this year we've taken in over 600 6800 animals, putting us on track for more than 8,000 animals to enter the shelter this year.

Most of the stray animals entering the shelter have no microchip or other form uh identifying the owner, and even though our average length of stay is 12.3 days, which is well below the national average, to give you an idea there, the national average for dogs is 24 days, and the national average for cats is over 50.

Uh we find ourselves beyond our safe capacity most of the year.

Therefore, we propose the flexibility to alter the impoundment or confinement period during a state of emergency as declared declared by the Board of Commissioners or periods of overcrowding.

This change would give us the ability to reduce whole periods from the current five working days to three working days.

Uh, this is important for us because the five working days always by the way it's set up now for the start period, becomes seven days, and that can lead to longer times in the shelter, which tends to back us up.

Uh additionally, we proposed altering that time impoundment or confinement starts from the following day to the current day and time of impoundment.

So as we impound the animal, that's the time that that's when the clock starts for us.

Uh the current system unnecessarily adds up to two additional days to the period of confinement, placing other animals in jeopardy of euthanization for space.

Can I ask you a question about that?

The state of emergency, is that determined by you, or is that a formal declaration of a state of emergency to assess that would be by the board of commissioners.

By the board of commissioners, yes, ma'am.

And then the periods of overcrowding would would be at my discretion.

So there could be a state of emergency issued on the crowding of animals and animal services.

Well, we're looking at things like a natural disaster.

Okay.

What would be what we're looking at there?

Okay.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any questions?

Okay.

And then our final one is section 10-135 selling and giving away of animals and use of animals as prizes.

Uh during the 2025 legislative period, House Bill 331, which is commonly been known as the roadside pet sale bill, uh prohibits the unregulated transfer of pets, dogs, cats, and rabbits in this case in public spaces to include roadsides, public right-of-way, public or commercial parking lots, sidewalks, parks, flea markets, and other transient or outdoor markets and outdoor recreational areas.

This was codified in state law, but no provision was made to allow non-sworn officers like our animal controller or animal services officers to enforce those provisions.

They can only enforce the ordinances, they're not allowed to uh by law enforced state laws.

Uh therefore we proposed amending the current section 10-135 to include the provisions of House Bill 331 so we may enforce via county ordinance violation.

Otherwise, only the police department will be able to enforce that law.

Okay.

And I'm happy for any questions.

Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Commissioner Gamble.

So I do have a question.

Um does this prevent Cab Canimal Services from going to different areas and doing pet adoptions?

It does not, because we are a licensed facility for that.

So it's only for the unlicensed people that are trying to sell, you know, they've got a litter of puppies.

Uh they pull into the Walmart parking lot, throw up a sign, and they're trying to get rid of them.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is this only for the sale?

So for the example of the Walmart with the puppies, it's only if they are selling the puppies, if they not if they are giving them away.

Even giving them away.

The law references transfer.

Transfer.

Okay.

And for the the penalties, is this for the person that is selling or giving away the animal and or the person receiving?

Uh just for the person that's selling or giving them a LISA.

Thank you.

And if I can tag on to that question, so Cobb County Animal Service is gonna impound the animal.

So does that individual have the opportunity to get their animal back, or does it become possession of Cobb County Animal Services?

So the law gives us the discretion to impound the animal.

Uh and yes, in most cases they would wind up getting their animal back.

So we're unless there's some cruelty tied to that, we probably would not impound the animal.

Sorry, this gets complicated.

Who gets the animal back in that situation?

The person that made the transfer?

The the the owner of the animals.

And so this is this is really designed not for us to catch them making the transfer, but actually putting them up for sale.

And so you know and and it's gonna have to wind up being reported somewhere.

Okay.

Okay.

I do have one more.

This doesn't prohibit someone from going to someone's residence to sell an animal.

I'm sorry, say that again.

This doesn't prohibit someone going to someone's residence by selling an animal.

No, absolutely not.

Now there are laws that govern the sale of animals and the need for a license.

So if they have more than two litters per year, uh and they're selling those, they would have to have a license to sell as a as a retail seller.

Is that at the state level or local level?

That's the state level.

Okay.

And we've been working with the Department of Agriculture on the issuance of those licenses, and so now if they're not eligible for a business license, they will not issue a pet dealer license there either.

Great.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And chapter 18 building regulations will be presented by Kevin Goebel.

Good afternoon.

Hi, Kevin.

Chair, commissioners, county manager.

Um essentially have two code amendments we're asking for.

Um one is on technical assistance.

Um this is usually come up several times where we had very specialized, highly technical skill sets needed that we don't have in our department, such as chemical experts, hazard experts.

Um, and this has come up that mimics what's in the fire code, and we work closely with the fire department on these, but essentially allows us to uh provide that technical assistance and do it quickly, get that back to the um to the applicant, but it just to clarify to say that that technical assistance portion will be paid by the applicant instead of paid by our department, and we recover recoup those costs so it pays pays out directly, let them know what it is up front, and then we can get it back quickly, so it doesn't um drag on or there's no uh communication or no confusion at the beginning of it.

Um that those costs will be incurred and then passed over to them.

Any questions on this uh this part?

Okay, please go ahead.

Who who and I know the applicant will pay for the technical assistance who chooses the professional.

Um that's kind of left up to to me because I'm over the the planner view department.

Uh we currently have um three that's on the books that are having a contract with uh that have all those technical specialties.

So we've used um so for example the water department had a highly technical thing, so that was chosen by one one group.

We had them quickly review it and turn it back around.

So we have three to choose from.

Okay, so and but you select not the applicant.

Correct.

Okay, and we work with them.

And so it mentions a fee.

What is that fee, and is it somewhere in a fee schedule currently?

So each one of those has different um applications, so that maybe a chemical engineer that needs to, or a fire protection engineer along with a chemical engineer that needs to write a report up.

And so for one example, we had like 1,300 different chemicals, so that takes a lot of time, and that one had to be done by the um the fire protection engineer that that could look through those.

So it varies, but we do have those and we give those ahead of time to them.

So you're you're looking at a couple hundred dollars an hour or 150 dollars an hour, depending on what what that is.

And that's communicated up front before the the process starts.

Correct.

And it goes into our professional services and goes right back out of professional services.

Okay, thank you.

And then piggybacking on that, how are we making it clear that this isn't a reason a reasonable fee for this service?

Do we look at other jurisdictions that may have similar practice and we've looked at other um engineers, other professionals that are charging this you know different amounts, and they're all within kind of a range of that same amount.

I'm not trying to get one versus another, but we are looking at comparing to make sure that we are reasonable.

Just want for our applicants to perceive us being reasonable and fair because they're the ones bearing the greater expense of whatever they're trying to put into fruition.

Correct, and we want to get it up front as quickly as possible.

Up front, that's right.

Yeah, yeah.

Um Commissioner Sheffield, yeah.

On bullet number three regarding the retainer agreement and the hourly compensation rate, is that a recommendation from your office, or are you attempting to set the rate?

We're not setting the rate, they uh so they would have a different rate for say um uh a certain engineer would have their rate, which it just allows us to enter in that agreement with them to say that is an acceptable rate and then move forward.

So it's it's really just so that we could move forward with the contract with them.

Okay, thanks.

Okay.

All right.

Sorry, one more.

The um what's the process if an applicant said declines to pay the fee or or wants to challenge the fee?

Is there a process in place?

Well, currently we have three different ones.

I guess we could get additional uh people and and be able to shop that around, but I want to make sure that we have the right expertise for the right project.

Um so the idea is to have multiple that we could choose from, but it's not to overcharge or undercharge, it's really to spread that around so we're not just using one uh person, so we can use multiple different people.

Okay, are there any other questions?

All right, Kevin.

We have one other on the swimming pool contractor.

Um, and we have had um since COVID, a lot of people building swimming pools in Cobb County.

Um we've been working diligently with them to get things closed out to make sure that things get uh done correctly, um, and working with pool contractors and with other uh building contractors.

Uh we feel it's best to require the pool contractor to have a GC license or to have some kind of approved certification for that to hopefully really protect the end user to protect the homeowners that are buying the you know that are building the pools, uh, but also so that everything runs smoothly and we don't have to have them take up uh concrete and things because they poured concrete before we inspected electrical and so forth and so on.

So we feel that this works in in other jurisdictions, it works in other places, so um also they are overseeing trade contractors.

So the the pool contractor is overseeing the electrician or overseeing the plumber, so they're acting as a GC.

Um so we're gonna try this and working with pool builders, and we we reached out to several of them and and talked about this that won't regulation.

Um so this is a way to hopefully streamline our process and then make sure everybody has uh a license and they have more skin in the game.

Okay, good.

And is that certification is that internal to the county or external?

It's not right now.

We're we're open to discussion and really just want to leave that flexible so we can work with other builders and other pool builders, but we want it to be something significant so they understand they are an actual license or they have certification for building pools and they understand the process and uh we typically try to meet with them ahead of time and say, Okay, here's your required inspections, please get those uh please get those done correctly, and then we let the homeowner know what those uh certifications are too, so they know what they're supposed to have before they give them any money to finish it out.

Please get those uh please get those done correctly, and then we let the homeowner know what those uh certifications are too, so they know what they're supposed to have before they give them any money to finish it out.

Any other questions?

Are you fine?

You can tell I like reading code.

No, that's okay.

Um C, you mentioned spa, so commits construction of a pool or spa.

Yes, it's a spa is not in definitions.

So it could be different things and different people.

So I just in the code, we're talking about a pool and spa could be built in ground and not above ground purchased spa that were uh not a not a piece of appliance or equipment, right?

But something that was built and constructed.

Do you do you think we should put that in the the definitions to kind of define that we are we're not talking about an above ground?

No, I think that that that's acceptable.

Yeah, that goes with the regular code.

If you can make a note okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Yes.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

Um not necessarily if you Kevin.

Debbie, is it defined in 134 what a spa is?

Um I don't have it open in front of me, but I I'll confirm.

But I think it's a I agree that in built in brown, then it needs to be that's what was intended by this code change.

Right, okay.

Our code say the pool and spa code, so it's all together.

I should put that in there.

Okay, are there any other questions?

All right, thank you, Kevin.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Ross Cavot is here to present um the new chapter 22.

All right.

Thank you, Debbie.

Thank you, Cheryl, Commissioners and County Manager.

On behalf of communications who participates in the code amendment process once maybe every 50 years, this is very exciting for us.

So much so that we're not amending anything, we're bringing a new chapter to you now.

It's uh chapter 22.

This is very similar to a conversation we had earlier when the board passed a uh resolution.

Uh it has to do with our dominant cable provider moving to a state franchise, and this new code essentially takes what was in the old local franchise, now puts it in the county code and uh highlights uh our rights over the right-of-way and how state franchise providers of cable TV service must uh comply with county regulations.

Um and it will not affect our uh cable franchise fees that come into the county.

We will still continue to get those as well.

Just as you know, cable TV is not a growth industry.

When I got here, our cable franchise fees for per year was 7.8 million or something around there.

Now it's 4.7 million, so it's been going down.

We expect that to continue.

But yeah, this takes what was in the local franchise, puts it into county code.

Any questions?

Thank you for simplifying that.

Commissioner Burrow.

Um your expert is is here as well.

Yes, and I would like to thank Abby Lynn Anderson, our cable franchise manager, and Nancy Gallagher with the county attorney's office, they did the heavy lifting on this.

So what part of that franchise fees goes to the county and what goes to the cities?

Or does or we're talking different franchise?

Yeah, we we just get the franchise fees for the for the use of the county right-of-way in the unincorporated parts of the county.

Okay.

Is Jim and Geecey here?

I thought we had this discussion earlier, and it's only the cities get it.

Uh the cities can get fran uh franchise fees for other utilities.

Uh okay.

This is just for cable TV uh providers.

Okay, gotcha.

Thank you.

I see Jimmy nodding.

Andrew stood up.

Yeah, we're good.

We would like those other fees, but we are not by state law allowed to get them.

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, but the legislature can change ACCG is working on it.

Any other questions for Ross?

Commissioner.

Oh, she okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Debbie, there's a question about no, just to help Debbie.

So we were talking about definitions of spas.

Debbie, Debbie, it's 78131.

The definitions for spa, it referenced back to health spa.

So we will have to come up with a clear definition of what a spa meaning pool means.

So that would be something new that would have to be written and then considered upon adoption of the ordinance.

Yeah, and when I read through it, the the only time we reference spa was on that line.

So just it may be something to remove.

Um or to really define it as an in-ground.

I I think that's the uh a better practice, just so there isn't a question.

Um whereas if if for some reason they just put in an in-ground spa, I don't know that you would or wouldn't do that, but we would still want those that chapter, those those sections to apply to to an in-ground spot even by itself.

Um the the next amendment um is a change to chapter 50 that's separate from from the what we'll hear later on, and that is a change to one of the prohibited um you did it to the to a prohibited noise, and this year uh the legislature passed House Bill 614, which um prohibited the use of consumer fireworks within 200 yards of a facility housing forces or equines as the um legislation uses.

Any questions?

Okay, we just skipped over stormwater, yeah.

That's gonna be separate.

We're Judy's gonna do the rest of chapter 50.

This is just um just this one isolated okay, all right.

Does anybody have any questions for this one?

Can we add residences allowed?

I know they put it in there, I know, but we can we are a little more restrictive on our noise ordinance than the state.

We can be more restrictive in code.

Not not as to no, you can't.

Not when there's preemption and the the fireworks are no, you can't well we are as to the fireworks.

We we have because the state led legislatures them or let regulates them, then we have to use what the state requires.

We're preempted.

That's the word, right?

But our noise ordinance, the hours are more hours are more restrictive on the non-holidays that they're allowed till midnight or one.

We're only 9 p.m.

not 11.

Yeah, yeah, we did that years ago.

We well, you you you can do it, but once the um once the state passed their firework ordinance, we can't be more restrictive.

Um I introduced legislation to correct it, and we can dust it off and ask them to re resubmit it again, but we we can't be more restrictive than the state code.

Well, our noise ordinance is 9 p.m.

I I will verify.

I mean, it's open so we can we can look at it and correct it as we need to.

And and Commissioner Burl, you are correct, it is, but there are exception dates, and I think that's where Commissioner Allen is referring.

State the state allows like holidays New Year's Eve, July 4th, to do that.

Correct.

They can go to midnight on certain days.

Correct.

All other days of the year other than the designated holidays, the fireworks have to stop are supposed to stop at 9 p.m.

Yes, because correct.

The state doesn't speak to the report.

Yes, we have latitude where the state doesn't make an assertion, but where the state makes an assertion on a substantive matter, we are preempted as the share.

Right.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that so for those specified state holidays, we would not be able to they are still midnight or one, whatever the state law is now.

Okay, but the other three hundred and fifty days of the year that are not designated holidays, our noise ordinance limits fireworks to 9 p.m.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

But we they're still going off all the time.

And and I know, and I'm not sure Debbie, if this is you or or the fire marshal's office, because I know Cherokee County adopted this ordinance before July 4th of this this year, I guess.

But then they had issues with homeowners calling because fireworks were being set off within the 200 feet, and they were being told it was up to the state to regulate that.

So I guess we need to clarify if the state is responsible for enforcing it to be within the 200 feet, or if it would be local.

What's a state law enforced by our well, of course, this that's Cherokee, it would be enforced by our police department.

Right, but I'm not again supposedly they I don't know the details, right?

But they adopted this language, but then the property owners were told that they could not, they being Cherokee County could not enforce it.

So I don't understand that.

And unfortunately, while this is good, we know that fireworks are still gonna go off and enforcement is going to be done.

I will clarify that with uh with director register, and we'll just we'll have a response for it for you on that on that issue.

But I would I'm not gonna speculate.

Any other questions on that change to the noise ordinance?

And next is uh Carl Crumbly to present chapter 54 good afternoon, chairwoman commissioners, deputy chief Carl Crumley of the fire department, and I brought Chief uh Dahl with me, your fire marshal.

Uh bear with me, we do have about 24 25 slides, so we'll work through those.

Um I'll stop at the end of the slides, so please let me know if you have any questions.

The first thing we have is 5426, which is the language used to establish that we have a fire department.

Um specifically within this portion, we're removing because of all the IGA discussions and so forth, where the county attorney's office is making edits to that, to where we're not naming out each city, but just basically saying municipalities with IGAs uh as established at the very end, we're adding a sentence to where the reference in this chapter to codes chapter or code section here within points back to chapter 54 of the code of ordinances.

Next slide under 5451.

This is our life safety certificate of occupancy uh chapter under Article 3 fire safety standards.

These are county attorney edits.

Uh the first edit that you see is changing from the building department to uh community development.

Uh it's currently says department of community development, but it'll say agency on the next version that you read.

Uh, that's how they name themselves under subsection G.

Uh, we used to have a stipulation that did not allow assemblies, storage, and industrial occupancies.

We just want to be able to allow any type of occupancy so long as they are not changing their classification, any substantial renovations or anything that would trigger a new certificate of occupancy to be occurred that they would be able uh to apply for an impregnation name change, assuming that there's no change to that occupancy, and it's only a simple change in owner and or a change in the name of the business.

So anything else would trigger them to go through, and actually, we do a plan review process completely on all those as well.

Uh, and that more aligns with the way the state law reads as far as when a new C CO would be established and when would not be established.

Uh and I could see some there may be some questions on that.

First, I want to thank you and community development for just the progress we've made in working together and closing any perceived gap on process for our business owners.

Um with this being stated, am I perceiving that in some instances they will not need to go through community development?

That they would just go to fire for event.

So it really depends.

So they're certification.

It's very interesting because the our fire department, we serve several cities, and we also serve an unincorporated cob.

So many times they come directly to us, but they are responsible for going to all the building departments as well.

And on incorporated cob they start at the building department and then they're sent over to us.

So that's their stopping grounds.

In the cities, they actually could the city send them to us first, and we start that process.

So in unincorporated Cobb, they go to the building department first for the community development, and then that's sent over to us, and I actually send them to us and they complete the forms and so forth to move forward.

Does that answer your that helps at least provide some additional coverage or protection for those in the municipal areas?

And I presume for unincorporated copy are working more closely with that department.

So there's a better handoff.

Yes, ma'am.

I clearly yeah, I would just say the the building departments uh do not want to participate in this.

We our goal is to not exclude them, but if nothing's changed except for the business name or the ownership of it, they do not want to re-evaluate the business.

And one of the disqualifiers for this process is if you do construction.

So if you do any level of construction, you're not eligible for it.

You would have to go through and then go through the normal process because then the constituents at the building departments would also have some you know building code uh review questions potentially.

Thank you for underscoring just the business change, the ownership.

This is meant to make it much faster on the businesses that are literally taking uh over businesses that are like this, and or when a business ownership changes, that can trigger it as well.

So they will meant to be an attribute for them.

But for safeguards, it's important to realize that we verify everything.

So when the information does come in, we see if they have a valid CO, we look at what they submit.

We actually a plan reviewer reviews that, and then we send an inspector out to verify at the actual location to make sure that they have a call review.

So if we're being completely honest, people often try and try to skirt the situation by saying, Hey, this is all I'm doing.

We oftentimes catch them on the inspection side that they're doing more than that.

Okay.

Any other questions, Commissioner Allen?

And this may not apply, but if if one of the things I'm really trying to understand is if it's um it's a name change, business just changed, but what if there's a material change in what they do?

So if if it's storage and they're storing hazardous materials, but that material changes to a different type of chemical, or they're buying the plant to retrofit it to do something completely different.

How do we then capture that?

It that's a good question.

And uh, so there are different types of occupancies, and one of the things that triggles a triggers a new certificate of occupancy is that if you change what you're doing there.

Um so if you're you were once storage and now you meet the threshold for uh a high hazard occupancy, you would immediately be required to go through the process to get a new certificate of occupancy to do that.

Now, simple changes in your process may or may not trigger that, but that's part of the plan review process to where you submit what you're doing, and we go out and verify based on all the records that you have there to see if it matches the information we have in the valid CO originally provided to you.

Does that answer that question?

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

And the the last section here is essentially uh cleaning up some more information as far as where we used to specifically uh name out each one of the cities and and points towards our IGAs and the state minimum fire code.

Next slide.

Okay.

This is further going into the life safety certificate of occupancy requirement.

Um in section H.

This talks about sub-leasing of spaces within valid CEO.

Essentially, we're removing the language where we had different processes within the city and basically saying that we're going to follow uh state law and fire code that has been adopted.

And in I we are given a definition of substantial renovation, which defines the valuation percentage thresholds and value-based standards, and rather than just simply saying exits or internal features are being done, providing actual evaluation to it, a more objective way of saying this is um what a substantial renovation is, which would trigger a new CO.

Okay, and a fire of hazard or certificate significant uh consequence, we're defining that as an instant or condition of a substantial renovation that would require a substantial renovation to restore the building back to uh being occupied.

Any questions?

Next slide.

Uh this is county attorney office edits essentially in Jay, we're just removing the slashes uh and replacing them with commas.

Okay, and then in the penalties and enforcements, so uh they're adding a penalty in an enforcement section to our certificate of occasion ordinance, and essentially follows the misdemeanor process uh that's in place with starting with a violation, then to a citation and escalating from there.

And if you go to the next slide, it continues to follow that process and ultimately in sub in subsection five, it identifies where the fire marshal's office authority stops.

So that authority stops in one and two family homes, uh, and as you can see the other areas, town homes separated by two-hour firewalls and so forth.

Any questions 5451.1 expiration of approval and activity and renewals.

Uh so essentially um this is the section where it talks about any approval that you've gotten from the fire marshal's office permitting so forth.

Uh, we're basically directing them to the fire code appeals board.

Um, if there's any appeals to that process, just to give a little bit of information after 180 days, any approvals that we've given, those sub those you know, end, and you have to get a new approval if you've not started your work by then.

Uh, we would have people getting approvals well in advance, so we needed that process in there.

And if someone wants to basically appeal that process, they would go to our appeals board.

Next slide.

Section 5452 International Fire Code adopted.

This is uh doing the subsections of the International Fire Code, essentially uh matching with what the state fire marshal's office and the state fire code that's been adopted, so adding sections 112, cleaning up some of the language from the county attorney's office suggestions, and at the end, given a definition to the stop work order.

We've used stop work orders several times, and uh for the layman person, they typically think that that just means I'm doing construction, stop that construction, but it can mean any activity that they're doing.

One example would be if I have a mercantile business and I am using as an assembly occupancy.

We would give a stop work order to say stop using it as this uh assembly and only as a mercantile.

So that's what the definition reads.

Next slide.

This is the re-inspection fees, and basically, if anybody wants to appeal that, that sends them to the fire code appeals board as well.

Next slide.

These are county attorney office edits where uh just cleaning up the title 25 and replacing specific names of cities and pointing them to the IGAs.

Next slide.

54 54.1ks.

This is uh some edits when it comes to the code sections uh suggested by the county attorney's office, but at the end uh making sure that we are not permitting tanks that the state fire marshal is a responsible for, specifically like fuel stations, so it just has a section in there that identifies we're responsible for these tanks, and the state is responsible for these.

Next slide.

So what's changed here is it basically update and clarifying what the fire marshal's office authority is and provisions and a deleted section.

These are all sections suggested by the county attorney's office.

Next slide.

Definition of fire prevention code.

So it removes the specific name of the municipalities and areas served, pointing towards the IGAs again, and uh, we're still in discussion with the county attorney's office, but updating the definition of the fire code.

Next slide.

Hydrogen obstruction and hydrant maintenance 5459.

Uh, we want to move forward with requiring a tagging system for hydrants.

This is very similar and something we picked up from another fire department, uh, sister fire department in the state of Florida.

We currently require uh sprinkler systems to be tagged to know that they're in service.

There's three different colors for those.

We want to do the same thing with um with our hydrants that are private hydrants.

Uh private owners are already responsible for making sure they're maintained.

Tagging these will keep us from having to turn them ourselves in maintenance of ourselves, and also let us know very quickly that they are up to date and usable.

Uh and you'll see in a little bit, we're doing the same thing for fire alarms, but all the language there is pointing towards that.

Any questions?

Next slide.

Fire hydrant installation for existing complexes.

This is pretty simple.

This is a uh retiring 2008 retroactive ordinance that has sunset and is no longer needed.

So we retroactively adopted it back in 2007, and it has played out.

There's no no need for it anymore.

Next slide.

5487 enforcement penalties.

We're adding language to authorized permit permits being revoked for contract violations and aligning words for the cities and the IJs and incorporated cop, taking out all the specific cities that are in there.

Any questions?

Next slide.

This one may be labeled incorrectly.

It's actually 5493.

Uh powers and duties of the fire marshal delegation.

This is uh recommendation by the county attorney's office to to remove uh section E.

Next slide.

5493.

This is uh points to chapter 54 definitions for the terms rather than redefining them here.

County attorney's office edit and 5494.

Uh we this is another retroactive ordinance that we adopted back in 2007 that has sunset, and we no longer need it.

Next slide.

We're removing another.

This is the second part to that, so it's just removing it continually.

There's too much to put on one slide.

Okay.

54 of 101 fire alarm requirements.

So this is what we talked about before.

Um removing subsection C as the county attorney's office is recommending that it's they felt like it was too broad of a statement, and we're re-lettering each one of the subsections, and then if you go to the next slide, we've added the language in there where we will uh work towards requiring an NFPA 1972 maintenance records where they will be labeled so the fire alarm panels will be labeled just like sprinkler uh systems so that make it much easier for us to make sure that they're maintained correctly.

Next slide enforcement county attorney's office made some edits uh for acquaintable enforcement code and remove the last sentence that you see there at a fee consequence for failing to obtain the submit the annual uh proof.

So if you don't label your fire alarm like you're supposed to, it gives us the authority to uh charge a fee for that 54114.

This is in the outdoor burning ordinance.

Uh this removes the city by city phrasing, uses countywide language suitable for both unincorporated COB and the IGA cities.

The hope is the cities take this unauthorized burning ordinance and adopts it wholly to make it much easier for us on the enforcement side.

Questions, yes, ma'am.

We've used municipalities throughout, so why flip to cities here?

I'm sorry, say that again.

So in the other changes, we've said municipalities.

So why did we change from municipalities to city here?

I'm not sure this is the uh recommended edits to the county from the county attorney's office.

I don't know if it is in this particular in this particular um space.

We typically say a city road versus a municipality road.

So it's just a kind of a context.

Next slide penalties uh explicitly defines the notice of violation.

So we used to have a uh uh a graduating scale, if you will, first offense, second offense, third offense.

Uh essentially remove that and it follows the rest of it where we start with a violation notice, then we move to citations, and the the magistrate court uh or would make a decision on how much that that violation would cost them uh during the ordinance, but that's the specific change.

The next slide.

This is essentially moving all the old language for penalties where I just talked about having a graduated scale for each one of the offenses.

And the next slide is the same, removing the penalties, and last uh confirming that the on six on section 54121 jurisdictions and appeals confirming the fire code's appeal board as the administrative appealing body, and uh the county attorney's office uh changed some language to where it now goes to the superior court uh if there's an appeal to the fire code's appeal board.

Any questions?

Any questions, commissioners?

Thank you, Sandler.

Oh, we do have one commissioner.

Do we need to change the above Shelby effect of August 1st, 2022?

That's a good question.

We'll make note of it.

I I think that could it it can stay there.

Um thank you.

Thank you for your time in walking us through that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Graham, if I'm not mistaken, that's when the state law changed, and but it wasn't picked up in our code when we made those changes related to it.

So that we that would have overridden if there was an appeal that was done at that point in time.

So shouldn't we be referencing the state code section that goes with that is a state code section?

I assume that that's part of what goes with it.

Well, the so the reason, but it's double underlined, so we're just now adding that.

Is that how I should take that?

I didn't see that this is effective date is not underlined.

Yeah.

Right, but the state law reference is we we just added the state law reference because it was not there, but it that doesn't change the effective date of that.

And next we have sorry, you have a note.

Oh, I'm sorry.

But to me, that looks like we're making it retroactive back to 2022.

Not referencing the that's from the state was changed.

So now we're changing it.

The the only change in that particular um section is as to is to remove the the word the term sorcery.

If you remember last year, they went from writ of certiory, which we had for years and years, to petition for review.

So that is the sole change, except with the addition of that state, that state uh statute.

But I will I will look at that and make sure that we're that we are clear as to what is effective and and what what that date is.

Okay, thank you, Debbie.

Okay, and uh Ben Cohen will uh will do chapter 86, and before he comes up here, I just I'm gonna be quick.

Um, I just want to say he told me that he'd never drafted slides for code amendments before.

Thanks, Debbie.

No, no, no, no.

No, no offense to anyone here, myself included, but he gets the award for the best slides.

Oh teach me that we'll judge that.

Good afternoon, chairwoman, commissioners, county manager.

Thank you.

I did add some uh some pictures for this just so uh for a little shock and awe, but uh thank you.

Uh I'm not gonna be as long as my fire department um brothers and sisters, but uh so I will make this quick.

Um what we are trying to do is um make an amendment to 86 2 disorderly conduct to prevent a few things from occurring, and so we have some enforcement action that we do not have uh right now.

Um the first part is you cannot enter onto a land or in a vehicle, like a houseboat or something like that.

That's why we put the vehicles in there, uh unless they have the owner or the permission of an owner, and we want them to have written approval.

The reason being is we have a lot of uh unhoused people that are just plopping themselves on private property, and then when if we can't find the owners of the private property, we have no recourse of uh citing them or having them removed.

And number two is they cannot litter on public or private property.

Uh there is a state law, but um the county ordinance uh addition would help us enforce that, especially in the northwest or northeast corridor.

Okay, yeah, I have some questions with respect to that first bullet because forgive me for being legally legally technical, but there's license provided when you have parking space sidewalks leading to your establishment.

So how do you define if somebody is unlawfully present when there are these implicit um actions by the property owner to invite someone to their property?

And I I just think it's more based on how someone is using it versus just being physically present.

Okay, if they if they're just physically present then and they should either be with the homeowner or property owner, and if they're and we'll get into some of it later, camping on somebody's property.

Yes, I agree with you, but you hear that's much more specific because me just again utilizing the implied license of a commercial property owner having me on their property would be in violation of this standard if I didn't have written permission to be present.

So um I says that no person shall enter upon the land or premises of another, blah blah blah after having received notice from the owner that entry is forbidden.

Okay, yes, that's yeah, that's the same.

I should have written I should have read the ordinance.

I thought you okay.

So I can read the rest of it.

Maybe they'll make some clarify that will clarify some of it.

Yes, sir.

Do you have a question first?

Thank you.

I would just hate for us to be so onerous that we end up making a lot more people culpable than addressing the issue that we're we have no intent of just writing citations to um anybody.

It's when they are told previously, hey, don't be here, or it's posted, or we cannot find the owner.

Okay.

Okay.

I can read that addition if that would help for you.

Yeah, and I'm gonna go to the code section.

So no person shall enter upon I'm sorry, excuse me, one second.

I'm sorry, it's 86-20.

Thank you.

No person shall enter upon the land or premises of another or in or upon any vehicle, boat, or aircraft owned by another after having received notice from the owner, lawful occupier, leasey, tenant, or any other agent thereof.

That entry is forbidden.

If requested by the owner, lawful occupier, leasey tenant, or any agent thereof of the land, premises, vehicle, boat, or aircraft, a police officer may give such notice upon request.

Any occupier camping on private property must produce written approval of the owner or the uh lawful occupier lasee or tenant pursuant to 86-1-2, which is the next one we're gonna go after.

And then no person shall throw bottles, paper, cans, glass, sticks, stones, missiles, or any other debris on public or private property.

Okay.

Can can I share with you perhaps how I'm interpreting yes, ma'am.

Um the officer, this is based on the second sentence, can provide notice to that individual at the request of the owner, you're not supposed to be here.

Yes, that's correct.

And then that person should be moving, not necessarily that person should then be on found to be in prohibition of this because at that point you're giving notice.

Yes, ma'am.

So what we do now in common practice for the state code of criminal trespass is we if somebody is on the property and the owner says they I want them to leave, we come and tell them.

Now, if they're camping and it looks like it's gonna take them a little bit of time to move their equipment or the whatever they have, we give them 72 hours.

Okay.

Because we don't want to just throw everybody in jail because they can't leave immediately, or if they leave, they leave all their stuff there.

So we give them 72 hours.

I I have a question with that.

Are you um considering an ordinance to require the owner to uh erect some type of fence because there's a particular area in my district where this is a challenge and we continue to visit that site, and if a person returns, or let's say a person is there for the first time, and he that person may look like someone else and then they're arrested.

I I just don't want that to happen either.

But are we we are we requiring the owner to provide any additional security measures or no trespassing measures on their properties?

No, ma'am, that has not come up yet.

And to answer your qu um your set second part, um if we give them a criminal trespass warning or per this ordinance, um we wouldn't just come back if we didn't have record of that meeting.

So if somebody looks like somebody, a John looks like Tom, yeah.

Well, we're not gonna arrest John only because we think he looks like Tom.

We would have to have written uh in an incident report or field contact that we had already given him a warning prior to, and we would have to ensure that we had positive identification.

And that's done through what means through our records management system.

Okay, but for the person that you're approaching, what type of identification are they showing you to prove who they are?

Well, hopefully they would have some sort of identification, or we have a rapid um fingerprint um scanner that we would there's numerous ways we can kind of figure out who they are, even if they don't have an identification on them.

If we run them and they used to have a Georgia license or Georgia identification card, we would be able to uh verify them through uh picture uh through our RMS system.

Okay, thank you.

All right, couple of questions.

Um just one clarification.

What constitutes notice is a no trespassing sign, a blanket notice, or is this yes, sir?

I would say uh verbal or um a um a trespassing sign.

So notice would have to be in the presence of a law enforcement officer.

So you come and you're like, hey officer Cohen, can you please tell John he's not supposed to be on the property?

That would be his first notice.

You just telling me that you gave somebody notice.

Um that would you would love to take your word for it, but we don't want to take somebody to jail only because of somebody else's word.

Okay, and is the notice a blanket notice, or does it have to be a notice to the individual?

That I don't want this person particularly on my property.

Well, if we had dealt with the with the individual, even with a criminal trespass.

So let me back up on the sign.

The signage is there, so I can approach you and tell you you can't be on the property.

I would not if I didn't have written documentation that you've already been given notice by an officer, um, then we would not take you to jail.

Okay.

Um you also referenced if you if you could not contact the owner, what would the recourse be at that point?

If someone is on property, someone else that doesn't own the property complains, you make an attempt to reach out to the property owner to find out if they have permission to be there.

And that's the problem we're having now.

Sometimes the property owners are not available.

There would be written a citation.

The property owner will.

No, sir.

The the person that the person who is on the property, um, they would be given a uh a warning saying you've got 72 hours.

Um please we'll check back with you in 72 hours.

You need to have written permission or you need to have the owner contact us.

We're not going to just write them a citation because this is a new ordinance, and we need to make sure that people have notice.

Okay, and this is where I'm so if you can't contact the property owner, you're asking the person that's that you're engaged with on the property to provide proof that they have permission to be on the property.

That's correct.

And if they don't, and we come back in 72 hours, they would be written a citation.

Well, what is but if you can't contact the owner, they can just pull out a piece of paper they wrote in there.

I have to, you know, John has permission to be here.

Does that I'm just trying to square what point do you have a right of action to remove them if you can't contact the actual owner?

Well, at some point we would have to be able to get a hold of the owner.

I mean it that's a very good question.

Um could they forge that letter?

Possibly, but then we'd be like, how would you how did you contact the owner?

Phone number, written correspondence, something.

Um we have no recourse.

If somebody we have a complaint right now, if somebody camping on somebody else's property, he says, Hey, I'm I'm allowed to be here because John told me it was okay, and they've got a tent, they've got fires, they're using a tree as a urinal, those are the type of things we're trying to avoid.

And what and what is your cause of action if uh if a property owner does say no, they have permission to be there.

Does that take everything off table?

They can then camp, do whatever they want to do with the permission of the within the county ordinances that are already in place.

Now, in this particular example I gave you, there's a lot of county ordinances that are being written by code enforcement.

Um that I'm sorry, I can't name off the top of my head now, but um you've got uh in 86 13 of you know building fires on public property, that's also gonna go for private property as as well.

So there are county ordinances in there that are that we can already affect, but not under this.

Okay, here.

I I just want to make sure you all have all the tools you need to clean this.

Thank you, so yes.

Uh and trust me, we do a lot of research on property ownership, um, trying to reach out because sometimes I just don't know.

And we don't want to uh bash the homeowners because they might be in another state, but they also have to be responsible for their property, as do the people that are trespassing.

Commissioner Garnley had a question or comment.

I do I'm interested in how we can make this notice less subjective.

I mean similar to the trespassing um ordinance that you refer to, you said there's signage with respect to that.

Is there not a way that we can have something that gives a sign or puts a sign on a property where it's very clear that that notice to not engage in this activity is on that property?

So if I'm listening correctly, you want us no no camping no no spending, no, I mean no camping.

Could we you're asking if we can mandate that for a property owner?

Let's say they have a three-acre plot in um North Cobb, and there are homeless people that are sleeping in the backwoods that they they don't know about.

You want us to maybe add to this that would they have to have criminal trespass signs or well their laws of prescription that deal with that to make sure that people are being stewards of their property absolutely like they should know that if they have a three-acre property that they need to check it once in a while to know what kind of activity is.

So I don't perceive that they should be utilizing our police force to make sure that prescription isn't happening.

Yes, ma'am.

I I think what the way I look at this ordinance and the way we add it to it is nobody's going to be targeted immediately.

There'll be some sort of notice giving either by the property owner or by law enforcement.

So if the property owner right now, in this example that we're speaking of, calls the police because there are people on their property that they don't want there.

We're not coming to arrest them.

We're coming to tell them about the court county ordinance or criminal trespass, uh state law.

Okay.

And then we give them time to leave the property.

Okay.

If it's a large piece of property, they have a lot of things, we give typically 72 hours.

If they're just walking through and they look suspicious, then they need to meet leave immediately.

So there is always notice given prior.

Yeah, I feel like that's much more objective.

But I guess what I'm having issue with is if a property owner did not reach out to the police, and then you're asking somebody to produce something written.

I just have a lot of problem with the subjectivity of that engagement.

Or if in absence of that verbally telling someone, because it gets back to Commissioner Sheffield's point, and I know you shared fingerprints, but at what point can an officer fingerprint someone?

Is it upon actually detaining someone?

Is somebody just gonna say, Oh, take my fingerprint if you don't believe me?

I mean you may have the tools, but I just don't see how this is I I guess I can't perceive how this is happening in practice.

Yes, in practice or real time.

I don't know if the best way to is to walk through a um an example.

Yes, please.

So you own property in Southcom, and you're on vacation for a week.

Okay, and somebody decides to go camp in the back side of your house where no cameras are gonna pick it up, and you come home and there's somebody camping in your backyard.

Okay, they're not supposed to be there.

That's your property.

Okay.

You call the police.

Yes.

Or maybe you're you're you go out there and say, Hey, you need to leave, they tell you no.

You call the police, the police show up.

You're like, hey, I just got home from vacation.

There are people camping in my backyard.

Yes.

I need them removed.

Yes.

Our job is to identify who it is, give them the a criminal trespass warning, or um tell them about the um county ordinance and they need to leave.

It would be on you as a property owner, say they need to leave now, or it's different if it's public property.

We typically give 72 hours.

If it's your own private property, they need to leave immediately because they don't have authorization to be there.

I'm very comfortable with this scenario.

I I support this scenario.

Yes, ma'am.

I think if you were to change the scenario and say property owner is at home, we see people camping in their property.

We are gonna go and approach them and tell them to move.

Okay, I have okay.

I have another example.

All right.

This is the um the complaint that we're handling right now.

Okay.

Property owner is disregarding what code enforcement has written citations for them.

They have numerous citations, they're not coming to court.

Um there's no warrants for their arrest, but they're not being cooperative.

Okay.

The neighbor who is a female calls the police and says, I've called code enforcement numerous times.

They're doing everything they can.

But the the camper says that he has permission to be there.

Okay.

He has a he he lights a fire every night.

He he said it's so nasty inside that he can't stay inside the house, so he lives outside.

Nobody lives inside because it's it's disgusting.

Well, that means he doesn't use the plumbing inside.

So every morning he gets up and uses a tree as a urinal, and there's kids around.

There's no evidence of that.

That's that's the complaint that comes in.

Right now, there's not much we can do about that.

We can assist code enforcement.

What we're trying to do is have them contact the owners on their behalf and say, I I need written permission, or they don't get that permission and they need to leave the property.

I'm still thinking through that because I just think there's so many other things that you can say outside um in decent exposure, or I guess there's some other Yeah, if it was caught on camera and decent exposure would be would be an easy charge.

But if it's one person saying that another person is is urinating that we can't just take their word for it.

Okay, so I I hear what you're saying, and it's a look, I'm glad I'm not you.

Yes, ma'am, and that's why we try to put this order.

I'm not envying you, I'm just thinking of a scenario.

So what we are authorizing is if there's activity going on on someone's property, still we can, if the property owner is not complying, this gives you the right to address that person's property without that property owner giving permission.

That's correct.

That's interesting.

That's because we can't do can and we can't go on private property now for other code issues.

So it I guess I mean uh trust me, we have many constituents.

The one in your district that keeps contact the person he's been in the email chains.

So I'm I'm hoping that he uh well it is a very difficult situation that we're in because we have so many complaints, and we are trying to put together an ordinance so we can help the citizens and property owners and business owners.

Um because the same thing is happening in the businesses as well.

Yeah, can I well just to that to that scenario?

Because I want you to finish that to its conclusion because with that scenario, what what would this do to give you the additional tools to remove that camper from that property, even though the property owner says they're fine, so I don't mind if they're there.

So if this is a uh if he does, well, I would have to have written permission, and then we would have to are you saying if he does contact the owner and the owner contacts us and we can verify he is the owner by uh a proper identification, all those other things, then we would only be able to um go after them under the county ordinances from code enforcement or state law.

So it doesn't solve it won't solve it outdoor storage or something.

Right, it won't solve their problem and and also even if it's not the owner, I think the way it reads is owner or tenant leasee.

So you the owner may not ever know that this is going on to their property because the lasee or tenant is saying it's okay for my friend to sleep in the front yard and light of fire, and well, he's got to have written permission to do so.

I don't know.

Go ahead.

So how is this different or similar to Marietta's ordinance that they passed last year?

It's identical.

So same language?

Yes, I be honest with you.

I copy and paste in the majority of it.

Because we just complimented all the and the reason for that.

I am 100% out of it.

At least he's transparent and honest.

The reason why we did that is because Marietta um their cycle of ordinances came faster than ours.

We actually wrote them in conjunction.

But Marietta's uh they've been having a lot of luck with theirs.

They've been able to um remove some of the unhoused that didn't want resources.

Um they've left the area.

Guess where they went?

And incorporated county.

They came in unincorporated Cobb County.

Um now we're gonna send them back.

Well, we have we have to mirror the ordinances, and we want to do the same thing with Kennesaw and Ackworth as well.

So you know, it doesn't go to dad and they go to mom instead.

It's it's one of those where you can't live on somebody else's property without permission.

That's written permission.

Okay, to me, yes, living on someone's property or living outdoors on someone's property.

I think I I guess I would feel more comfortable regulating limiting somebody living outdoors than seeing some of the nuances in here, which seems so subjective that I don't maybe it gives you enough footing or it's given Marietta enough footing, but why not just prohibit outdoor living?

Could that be doing that there?

Then you've got oh, that's another chapter.

Um yeah, we've got a couple of things.

I'm sorry, yeah, sorry.

We'll save the questions.

So let's let's go to that.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, I didn't really know.

I just wanted to, I just wanted to follow up on something, and part of the reason I asked whether or not we're going to require uh the homeowner to take some sort of action because you're familiar with the issue that I'm dealing with in district four with a particular owner.

Yes, and although we have a written letter from this owner to uh remove people from this property, so we have the letter, no warning is required, people are required to move.

That's fine for the people that are there at that particular time a few months down the road, a few weeks down the road, now you have a new set of people, and maybe perhaps some of the old people returned.

But if there isn't anything to signal that this is no trespassing, they will continue to come.

And that's why the owner needs to take some level of responsibility of erecting some sort of no camping, no trespassing sign, uh, because they are draining county resources by sending police out when they can just simply make the investment to post those signs.

Now that's not to say that we won't ever return there, but having those signs posted would definitely defer some people from returning or deter, excuse me, some people from returning.

I think that would give them very clear notice if there was a sign.

They could not argue and say they did not know.

And I think it would also eliminate having to go back a second time.

Or just you know, having people to prove who they are or who they not are, but I think we need to put it on on the on the owners.

Don't we do that with trespassing?

We do have a uh state law for criminal trespass.

Don't they have a sign they need to erect for us to immediately be able to address it?

At least I've heard us put that in the case.

We do, I don't know if that relates to homeownership or private property.

Okay, no, I'm not aware of private property or home.

So yeah, this this gets to residential areas.

In my mind, I'm just thinking commercial, I'm not thinking residential.

Well, yeah, I'm about to get into business as well, but this is the private property ones that we added.

Um if you don't mind, I'll go through the other ones because they're all very related and very similar.

Okay.

Um, and maybe that will answer some of your questions.

So um 86-12, I'll read it as well.

Prohibited use of private property by unauthorized persons.

It shall be unlawful for anyone other than the owner of private property, a leaseholder, or such private property, or the rightful occupant of such private property to camp, sleep, reside, store, store personal property, or lie upon any private property without the owner, owners or leaseholders' written permission, which must be maintained by the requester for display to law enforcement upon request, any such of um of private property authorized by and consented to by the owner, leaseholder, or rightful occupant of such private property shall be in conformity with the provisions of OCG or uh official code of Cobb County, Georgia.

And then we have building fires in public places, and this is if you go to the next slide.

This is to prevent uh wildfires.

We had some at 75 uh one or two years ago that was set by someone housed, and then of course this is um uh 285.

So no person shall camp, sleep, reside, store personal property, or build maintain, or use of uh a fire other than the areas and in a manner specifically designed and designated for fire for camping or cooking purposes on any county-owned streets, public squares, public parks, or upon any other public property without written permission issued by the county, which must be maintained by the requester for display for law enforcement upon request.

A person seeking such permission shall file an application with a public safety official designated by the county manager and forms provided by such officer.

Any such use of public property authorized by and consented to by the county shall be in conformity with the provisions of the code of ordinances of Cobb County, Georgia.

So that last one of them they can't build fires on the in the county right away or uh county owned property.

Does anybody else have any comments or questions?

I know this gets to the very large scale issue of homelessness, yes, ma'am.

And as you shared, by one jurisdiction having a more prohibitive code, it pushes the challenges or the issue to areas that have less prohibitive code, and this will work for us and it will become somebody else's burden.

And I know we're trying to do all that we can to clean up cob.

I get the calls, I reached out to you, I reached out to nonprofits for assistance, but it's just very unfortunate for the I mean, and I'm just being philosophical here, not necessarily practical that you just criminalize existence if you can't afford a place to live.

Yes, ma'am.

And what would it do?

And our philosophy is every time that we deal with an unhoused person, whether it's private property, public property, we always offer the resources first because we don't want to take them to jail because that doesn't solve the problem.

So we take them, we we we offer them everything that we can, whether it's a ride to live safe, a ride to Must Ministries, to a family person's house, um, a family members' house.

It's only if they've refused to do what we have asked them to do or find resources that we end up having to arrest them.

And it may get more to family members' houses, and I say that because um I recently had a meeting with uh the lady over the CFR, her name, Kagan, Melanie Cake, and she's over uh forgetting the word that they use continue what is it, housing the over the continuum of care.

Housing the continuum of care, yes, it's like a network of all of our nonprofits in the county that address housing.

And she shared there just isn't enough resources.

There are not there are woefully lacking in having space and resources for the requests that they get every year.

I don't have the percentage in front of me.

So I know we're doing what we can do to remove this from being a nuisance to other property owners and business owners.

Yes, ma'am.

And sometimes we become the bad guys because we're trying to protect the property owners and the business owners, but we also have to advocate for our other citizens.

Yes, ma'am.

And then we become the bad guy when he asked for funding.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

For that robust discussion.

I know this is not an easy issue.

Yes.

Well, and two, I I'd like to see a history of complaints that have impacted neighborhoods or um criminal activity from then there's comments.

I'm sorry, I think Commissioner Burrell, I don't know if you're sharing a comment for DC Cullen.

Let me not keep referring to him as first name.

Yes, if you can share your comments.

I was just saying we have a history of um complaints or calls, 911 calls of um, I mean, we've had to remove bus shelters because of the litter and the loitering and you know safety issues.

Um in different districts.

So I'd like to know what the history is of those areas um that have impacted neighbors or businesses or okay.

So if I'm under understanding your question, you want to know where our concentration of the issues that we're the challenges we're having in the county right now, or the history uh well, a history of the number of police calls that you've had to go out, whether it's Bells Ferry or Mapleton Parkway or uh anywhere.

Well, right now the the the biggest concentration we're having right now is the Bells Ferry corridor, uh, which is why we mirrored and they've done that.

Yes, ma'am.

You pass that on nicely.

Um but the the but the problem hasn't gone away.

Um, which is why uh Marietta Police Department and and we are trying to come together um in an educational point of view and then uh an enforcement point of view.

Okay, and this all started when the uh county manager, Dr.

McMorris put together the on unhoused task force, and these are the ideas that came up.

Umfortunately it's taken a year for us to get to this point, but we have made some headway.

Um we are able to track um who the unhoused folks are, why um how are we or you you may ask why we're tracking them so we know who wants resources and who is just wanting to be off the grid and live in the woods and get resources from the local um food pantries so they have food, they have resources that they can get on a daily basis, and then they go live somewhere else.

We want them to obviously get some sort of stable housing.

Um that's that's on them, that's on them.

There's their situation.

Uh we help where we can, but um Mapleton has its own issues in different areas.

Um they've had an unhoused issue uh since I started 27 years ago off of Veterans Moral Highway.

They've always been there.

Um there's a small a couple smaller communities by Floyd Road.

Um we'll work with the City of Marietta, so their ordinances will match ours, so our officers aren't confused on what they can enforce and what they can't.

Um but I don't know if that gives you the whole history.

Um we can go back in the Must Ministries when they were here when the everyone rode the trains in the Marietta.

Um there was an unhoused population then.

But I've it's an issue in two major areas, Bells Ferry Corridor and Veterans Moral Highway, Floyd Road area.

Yeah.

This is a very complex issue.

And I know we had the presentation by Miss Cage and we asked if she could actually meet with the commissioners about it.

And I think that meeting didn't occur, which is why you're getting the barrage of questions that you're getting.

And I would just encourage, we still have time for there to be some further questions.

Maybe it's on your lap.

I don't know if she would do that because I don't know if from listening to you out of courtesy, I would want to notify the other jurisdictions that don't have something in place because I've even heard another city we had restricted some type of uses through our land use and zoning code, and they said now everybody's coming to our city for these uses, and I just want to be mindful of the impact, immediate impact that those other jurisdictions could feel if we're not going to be able to do that.

Yes, ma'am.

I've been in close personal contact with all the chiefs and deputy chiefs that this ordinance was going into place.

And then I reached out to the other municipalities, letting them know that we hope to put um implement this by the end of the year.

Okay, yeah.

Yes.

Um, so if you said all of them, hopefully Austell, Mabel Tanner at the table and are in the process of considering similar code.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

No, no problem.

Thank you.

And Kimberly White will present the revisions to 102.

Thank you, Debbie.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman, Commissioners, County Manager, County Attorney.

I am presenting for both sides of my department today.

Um, in the absence of Jonathan Jenkins.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

You can begin whenever you're ready.

Okay.

All right.

So section 1021 to 102.4.

Um, we just brought in the title and scope to include recovered materials and community welfare clause.

Section 1025, we added definitions such such as bulky waste, hard to recycle plastics, recovered materials, and hazardous waste.

Section 1029.

Um we we clarified the proper locations where material can be dropped off to permanent permitted facilities for MSW.

I'm sorry, just trying to keep up with you if you can just bear with me.

This definition section is very long.

Yes, we have a book today.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

Okay, all right.

Section 10210.

That's for the lawful placement of yard trimmings in MSW.

You can't mix the two together.

Okay.

Section 1021.

We clarified the proper disposal locations where residents can drop off material or have a hauler pick it up.

Section 10212.

We um updated and clarified our department name and title.

Section 10214.

We added the state law reference.

This was already a part of our code, but the state law had a specific um, you know, they have a they have a code, so we referenced that in our code.

Section 10216.

We corrected our department name.

Section 10251 to 102 56.

We added uh recovered materials and corrected our department name in each of those sections.

Section 10257.

Um, this section was to address that permits are not um transferable or assignable.

Section 10258.

We corrected our department name.

Section 10259.

Uh we clarified the steps and procedures for um a permit suspension or revocation, and then we in the corrective actions, and then corrected our department name.

You'll see that throughout.

Okay, sections 10260 to 10262.

We corrected our department name and then clarify the requirement of a permit for collection.

Section 10264.

We added our identification requirements for waste collectors and the compliance with the federal, state, and local law.

Section 10265, we modified our title, basically updating our title.

And then we clarify the responsibilities for the hauler to offer recycling.

And then if their customers want recycling, they would provide a recycling container for them.

Section 10267, we corrected our department name.

Section 10269, we added the proper placement of recyclables inside of the recycling carts.

All materials should be placed inside of recycling carts loosely, not inside of bags, unless it's in the hefty renew program.

Section 10270, we corrected our department name.

And we did we corrected duplicate language that was within the code.

Section 10271, we corrected our department name and title, and then we added language that aligned with OSHA to ensure timely collection during emergencies or weather conditions.

Section 10274.

We deleted this section.

We found it was unconstitutional.

Section 10275.

We clarified the compliance with federal state and local law.

Section 102 91 and 92.

We corrected grammar.

Section 10296, we corrected our department name and title.

Section 102 98 and 99.

We added the chief sustainability chief sustainability officers responsibility for litter abatement, and then just numbering of those articles within that within that section.

Section 102111, we clarified the Keep COP beautiful name.

Section 102.112.

We uh modified the number of KCB board members from 21 to 22 to accommodate the city of Mapleton.

And then we also modified the number of cities that were listed within that section of the code from 6 to 7.

Okay.

Section 102.113.

We clarified the criteria criteria for replacement of KC booth board members.

Section 102114.

We modified our meeting locations times to include in-person virtual meetings and phone meetings as well.

And then the minimum of those meetings per quarter and quorums for our four full board and then executive committees.

Section 102-115, we corrected the name.

Section 102.116 through 119, we corrected our name and then programming language, the litter index survey, which is what we call that program.

It had a different title that was from before, it was an older title.

Okay.

Anyone have any questions for Kimberly?

Yes, Commissioner Gamberle.

It's not necessarily a question, but I have concerns because we are putting in definitions for duplexes, multifamily, etc.

etc.

And with modifying section 134, which is going to be going into the UDC.

I don't know why we are now putting definitions within this section of the code because if those definitions ever change, then we're gonna have to come change it here.

So if residential and the different types of residential is clearly outlined in another section of the code, I don't know why we're starting to redefine it here.

Okay.

Um certain definitions could have different definitions per chapter.

Of course, chapter 134, it could be different for the the solid waste chapter.

Um but but there could, if there is a reason, and I I I'd have to look at those definition the definitions here that are changed or added to confirm if or there if there is a need to include those or or what that purpose is.

Okay, yeah, there may be a way to simplify it.

If there is, just ask that you consider that.

Yeah, sure.

So that would keep the I'm sorry, Commissioner.

Just want to interject that would keep this code section from becoming uh a casualty like other code sections where you have to keep going back and changing the individual verbiage.

If you just make a reference to a particular code section, then as that changes, it will apply across the board.

Right, right.

And the only the only point I'm trying to make is if there is a if there is a difference in the definition for the particular purpose, yes, there might be an issue to make that yeah.

We're not trying to put ourselves in that position.

I would just ask for that to be considered, of course.

I try to have to trust your judgment on that.

Commissioner.

Well, the way I'm looking at it is it it doesn't matter what living housing choices you make, your trash needs to be picked up, right?

And and this code should just be regulating how trash is picked up, not what type of fare housing you live in.

That's fair.

It just it's it's either residential or commercial, and then we avoid future complex.

Okay, because if you if you look, that is all newly added, and again, I wasn't sure why.

And like for duplex, you know, it says it's designed exclusively for residential accuracy by two families.

Umlection services offered by residential or service service provider or commercial.

So again, they need to have the trash pick up.

I I don't know why we're defining the types of housing.

Okay.

I have a question.

Yeah, yeah, I was going to ask was there feedback from the haulers that um communicated any type of challenges based on the housing type.

Um, no, we we met with the haulers a couple of times actually in preparing this, um, and that was not something that they identified that they felt like was a challenge to add to the code.

However, um I could I could definitely um take this information or these questions that I don't have answers to back to Jonathan Jenkins, um, and he can you know clarify further details for that for that section, but to answer your question, um no, the haulers did the haulers that were there, which was um the president of the hauler association actually did not identify that as any issue.

Not necessarily an issue with the code, but an issue or challenge with picking up in certain residential areas.

I know if it's come up before, like if a road has a hammerhead, for example, where it dead ends.

I know that that's not really a community that some haulers would like to pick up.

So I thought maybe there was some conversation around that type of those type of challenges.

I know that there are certain streets that are tight for some trucks to get down, which is why they have different types of vehicles like scouting trucks and things of that nature.

Um, but I'd I can't I can't 100 100% answer that question because I don't know what the haulers um you know challenges are in reference to every street, but I know that there are some challenges with streets and turnaround radiations.

Okay, yeah, something similar.

Um just suggested there was reference to the individual cities and some of the other code sections we had, just refer to municipalities, so you don't have to keep up with hopefully we won't have any new changes to consider, but in case there were, you just have that um broader language.

I do have another question with respect to 10265.

It's with respect to the requirement for our haulers to also have recycling.

Yeah, I mean here.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, I'm trying to find it.

Okay, because this has come up in a number of meetings today without this code change, haulers are required to have recycling.

Yes, today without the code changes.

Yes, ma'am.

The code read mandatory uh requirement of recycling of offering of recycling services.

What we changed it to was require provision of residential elective recycling service to clarify that the haulers will offer the recycling, and if they're if their customer wants recycling, then they will provide a recycling container for them so they could collect recycling.

Okay.

Is it guess it removes ambiguity about the hauler having that choice?

It's the customer that has the choice.

Yes, correct.

The the residents is an elective service.

So they have the choice if they would like to recycle.

And if they do and they ask their hauler for that recycling service, then the hauler would provide them a receptacle so they could collect the recycling.

Okay, and then I'm looking at can't look very well because my eyes here, but in section C, it's with respect to the material flow.

You know how sometimes people are aggregating everything.

Is that what this is pertaining to?

That there needs to be it needs to be a specific separate service.

Um no, this is pertaining to material this picked up curb side, and if that material is considered contaminated, then um sometimes the MERF, the material recovery facility will reject that load if it's heavily contaminated, and then that material would need to go um to the proper disposal site, which would then be the landfill.

Well, what what we're saying in here is that um you know, with the intent to circumvent the proper recycling material flow, so truck like haulers should not be picking up recycling and taking it to the landfill if it's not contaminated.

They all recycling material should go to the MIRF.

Okay, that's fair enough.

I don't how would that be enforced?

How would how would the landfill know?

I guess you're just making sure that you're putting them on notice after we've been talking about notice.

This you will provide some notice that they should not circumvent it.

Then if you ask over it, then you can say the code told you that you want.

Okay, correct.

Fair enough.

Then I have here 102.

But I would like to I would like to say that I have full confidence that our material in Cobb County is actually being recycled.

It's going to the recycling facility, and we are processing that material and recycling it.

So we're really excited about that.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Appreciate you sharing that.

I wrote down 10274.

Okay, now I read my chicken scratch.

Um, it said unconstitutional.

So I guess we were barring um moving materials across county lines, and they can move waste or correct recycling across.

All right, and then have 102.

I think 114.

I don't know why I wrote down that code section.

If if I remember and again, can just blow this up on my computer.

I'll come back to you.

Okay.

So um this this section um discusses is it's mostly updating.

So in the beginning, um, Cobb County or Keep Cop Beautiful was named the Cobb Clean Commission, and we were cleaning up that that terminology.

It wasn't it actually says 112 here, and I already asked that question.

Okay, it was just the sit referring to the specific city names and just general term.

Yeah, all right, thank you.

Commissioner Broll, you had a question.

No, no, I'm not.

I'm wondering if the code is in our book for tonight.

This or you print it out back.

It's in our book, yes.

I just did what Debbie sent to the changes.

We don't have the cycle, it's in the back.

But I know when they originally came out, there was a question I had about mandatory recycling.

So now it's they have to offer, and the customer can elect to have it or not, but they have to provide a container if they choose.

And of course, it is a separate container and it is a separate charge from their trash.

Correct.

Okay.

Any other questions for Cambridge?

Thank you, Director.

Thank you.

Have a wonderful day.

And chapter 106 will be present.

I'm sorry, I need to take a break.

We've been here for two hours.

Let me go ahead and just be mindful.

I'll take about a 10-minute break and we'll come back.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Hello and welcome back to our Board of Commissioners work session this October 28th, 2025.

We are in the midst of reviewing code amendments for this year, and we are now at chapter one oh six, and I'm gonna turn things over to our assistant county attorney, Debbie Blair, or deputy county attorney.

I want to make sure I get this right.

And I'm going to ask Jonathan Jonathan Yee to come up and present one oh six.

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, county manager, Jonathan E.

Deputy Director with the Department of Transportation.

Hi, Jonathan.

DOT recommends two code amendments in chapter one hundred six.

Um next slide, please.

Our first recommendation is for code section one hundred six-10, which covers pavement cuts and utility work within the county right-of-way.

Staff recommends the changes shown above to amend the code to reflect the existing process of approval, which is through the Department of Transportation.

Currently, DOT approves this work through utility permits and land disturbance permits.

Last year, DOT approved over two thousand permits as shown on the screen.

Okay.

Yes, any work covered by those two thousand permits would have to go to before the board for approval if we were to follow the exact code as it's written today.

Okay, I'm just wondering what the premise behind it is.

And the only area that I think of some set with some sensitivity is the area that's in your district, Commissioner.

Um, East West Connector.

Sometimes CH James has come up a number of times with respect to curb cuts.

We generally haven't been the bar, but the community has appealed to us for their considerations, particularly with respect to East West Connected and their historic area.

wondering what the premise behind it is and the only area that I think of some set with some sensitivity is the area that's in your district commissioner um east west connector sometimes chemist has come up a number of times with respect to curb cuts we generally haven't been the bar but the community has appealed to us for their considerations particularly with respect to east west connected and their historic area um the state I think governs more of CH James but uh I would just hate for there not to be a communication it's this may be similar to what we considered for the county manager's threshold I mean by law if we're not part of that decision process I just hope there would be a communication to the commissioner about it yes that's what she's asking I guess just for clarification on your question is it was your question specifically for curb cuts as it relates to access to private parcels or I can I'm conflating the two because generally it's been the issue with the curb cuts um sure and and so just to clarify uh this specific code section is um the the language says pavement cuts and utility work so this is for things so this is for work if a utility company needs to put um infrastructure within county right this is constraint I can't believe you've been coming to you've been coming to us for this for the utilities to do a curb cut our our actual current process we've been approving them all through the utility permits and through the through the land disturbance permits so our request for this amendment was just to reflect have that code reflect our current process all right I don't have any is you any commissioners have any issues with that no issues but should we designate a person within the department for approval usually it will say the director of the department I'm just wondering if we need to designate a person uh we did discuss that and currently the approval is actually through our utility manager so we we wanted to leave out the specific position just to give some flexibility there.

Okay thank you for that sure all right okay thank you and next slide please and that actually leads uh to the topic we had just discussed so this is a brand new section our second remedy our second recommendation is for a new code section 106-11 titled limited access highways so this is specifically concerning brand new curb cuts as it relates to private parcel access from county right away okay and this new language will codify it so there was actually a 1994 board policy which was also affirmed later in 2002 by the board of commissioners at that time which states that the board must approve new access specifically for the roadways shown on the slide as this as are shown on the slide here the new access must be approved by the board either through a zoning hearing or through regular board meeting okay and these roadways are as shown on the slide Barrett Parkway between Cobb Parkway and Powder Springs Road and then that physical road roadway becomes east west connector from Powder Springs Road to South Cobb Drive and that concludes my presentation on this section and I'm available for any questions.

Okay.

Thank you yes this describes the situation yeah yeah any questions commissioner you're good all right thank you thank you appreciate it and Commissioner Burl mic wasn't on but she said good job twice thank you commissioner yes he's no children yes it's maybe your first time presenting thank you um our code amendments the um next change is to chapter 114 um we were asked to look at a possible new special service district um for these code amendments um which we're gonna postpone for for now but as we were researching um the the possible new special service district we did we found that the collection of taxes was improper in the existing Cumberland special service district number two so it should not be a misdemeanor it should be collected as other advalorum taxes are collected through state law so we are making that change just that the taxes are collected in accordance with state law so that was the only change in 114 we like you to comply with law that'd be great we do like to do that thank you and that's all the code amendments with the exception of the Judy Jones show so I will ask her to step forward call it what it is saving the best for last thank you Debbie somebody put it all the time clock it's it's all up to you all right good afternoon chairwoman commissioners and county manager I'll go through the water systems the code amendments I'll start with chapter 50 section 5071 revises the stormwater management special assessments of properties to be specifically for recovering costs incurred by the county for repairs for private stormwater infrastructure section 50 102

I'll start with chapter 50.

Section 50-71 revises the stormwater management special assessments of properties to be specifically for recovering costs incurred by the county for repairs for private stormwater infrastructure.

Section 50-102 corrects duplicate wording in the language.

Quality is listed twice.

It should be quantity and quality.

Section 50-106 adds the definition for trout stream protection as required by the Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District.

And where the code requires maintenance and inspection agreements for privately owned stormwater management systems.

We are just changing the language from system that will not be dedicated to the county to system privately owned and maintained.

Section 50-110, Stormwater Management Assessment District.

The current language provides for assessments to properties for cost incurred by the county and undertaking duties in accordance with the terms and provisions of this entire article.

Revisions are to revise the language for special assessments of properties to be created only for the purpose of recovering costs incurred by the county for repairs to private stormwater infrastructure that create a danger to the public or damaged county infrastructure.

Section 50 11, maintenance of stormwater facilities changes residential with county owned.

So these are about facilities that the county is maintaining.

Section 50-112, maintenance of stormwater facilities privately owned, changes commercial slash industrial to private or privately owned to include all privately owned facilities.

It clarifies that owners of privately owned stormwater facilities are required to maintain them.

It removes the process of taking action against an owner to address nuisances from this section, and it is being moved to section to sorry to chapter 83 nuisances.

Changes in section also adds the requirement for the county to provide all properties associated associated with a stormwater facility and notice when said facility is causing a public nuisance.

And then it also adds a provision though that under emergency circumstances where there exists a danger of bodily injury or death, or the count that the county does not have to provide that written notice.

Section 50-130 removes the reference to publicly dedicated stormwater management facilities on final plates.

There's additional language that will also address the issue of the county to stop accepting detention ponds and new subdivisions.

Section 50-143 deletes that county funds for paying for additional stormwater storage in a new development shall be provided out of the stormwater management assessment.

So that those are the changes proposed for chapter 50.

Okay, are there any questions to chapter 50?

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Chapter 83, nuisances.

Section 83-4 adds the improperly maintained stormwater management facilities as part of nuisance abatement.

And adds language referencing general nuisance law to be consistent with state law.

Section 83-5 definitions as references to applicable county codes and the requirements of the Georgia stormwater management manual and adds the director of the water system or designee to the list of public officers.

Section 83-6 adds the proper maintenance of stormwater management facilities as a duty of the property owner.

Section 83-7 adds language consistent with state nuisance law and adds the conditions in which a public officer investigates a nuisance that creates a flooding, hazard, erosion, or water contamination.

So moving some of the things that we have to address with stormwater management facilities not being properly maintained from Chapter 50 to Chapter 83 makes it consistent with how the county is handling other public nuisances and ensures that the language is compliant with state law and that that way if state law changes that changes how the county handles other nuisances it would change the stormwater as well instead of having to remember to go back and also update Chapter 50.

Any questions on Chapter 83?

Moving right along.

All right.

Chapter 10.

So the um the changes in chapter 10 are related to the county uh for the county to stop accepting detention ponds in new subdivisions.

So section 110-30 removes detention pond lots from items to be conveyed to the county as public as part of the final plat.

Discontinues the county's acceptance of ownership and maintenance of detention ponds and new single family residential subdivisions.

Section 110-11, structural stormwater controls adds the requirement that any stormwater management facilities serving more than one property shall be governed by an established property owner association.

As the requirement for stormwater management facilities to be included within the declaration of covenance of a development.

Those are the changes to section one uh sorry, chapter 110.

Any questions?

Yes, I agree with you, they're difficult to maintain.

I remember us having a zoning where there was a property owner that had a detention pond that was serving like multiple residential properties.

Uh I guess I'm just thinking of an exception that we had in zoning.

Um they were pretty frustrated about knowing they have responsibility for that.

I don't know if there's other instances of that occurring.

Are you referring to underground detention?

Not underground, just a general detention pond.

So that that is sometimes um an issue that subdivisions don't understand what their responsibilities are with respect to maintaining detention ponds.

We try to do public education on that, and we'll continue to work on getting that information out.

Okay, yeah, this was a um it wasn't a platted subdivision, I think it was the older residential area.

I'm just hoping this is broad enough to cover existing conditions.

So this really just addresses new new detention ponds.

Okay, that's good to know.

Thank you.

Considering that, what what's the process for I guess there'll be no change in detention ponds?

Like the chairwoman just discussed, it would stay basically as is where one person may be responsible for detention pond for multiple properties.

So typically in a subdivision, um the HOA is responsible if the HOA owns the property that the detention pond is on, if it's on a separate parcel, then the HOA would be responsible for that, and the HOA would own that parcel.

Currently, some have been dedicated to the county, and the county would be responsible to the detention ponds on which we own the parcel.

Okay.

And so if we own the detention pond, we just keep it.

This isn't gonna impact, we're not gonna go and try to now move those back to the HOA, those are gonna stay with the county.

That's correct.

We will we will continue to maintain the ponds that we own today.

Okay.

I have a question for clarification on the first bullet.

Does that mean that if it's more than one property, you are required to establish an HOA, or can it be uh governed by one that already existed before the two or three or multiple homes are built?

So this is this is contemplating a new development, so a new subdivision.

So you were taking an existing parcel and you are subdividing a new parcel.

So it would have to be either incorporated to a new HOA if it's a new subdivision, right?

If you're if it's um subdividing within an existing subdivision, then it would be associated with if there's an existing association.

Okay, but let's just assume it's a development of three homes and they're serviced by a stormwater facility.

Are they required to have a mandatory HOA for purposes of maintaining the pond?

They would have to come up with an HOA or some kind of written property owner agreement between the three properties.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

All right, can we continue?

All right, y'all must be worn out from everybody else.

All right.

Chapter 122.

All right.

Section 122-57 allows county officials to enter properties for the purpose of identifying identifying water service line material to comply with the EPA lead and copper rule.

So to do those investigations that we need to do to comply with federal law.

Section 122-84 moves fees for delinquent accounts to amended section 122-89 and cleans up various language within this section.

Section 122-89 updates the language to be consistent with current water system procedures for late and delinquent accounts and deletes the amount of the late fee being specified in the code because it is specified in the water systems rate schedule, which is approved by the Board of Commissioners.

So that way, if we change that, we don't have to come back and change the code, and what's in the code does not follow our current practice.

Section 122-126 wastewater lift stations.

So current code states for environmental reliability and economic reasons, public wastewater lift stations are generally discouraged.

The county shall eliminate existing public lift stations where deemed feasible and appropriate by the department director.

The last public lift station accepted for new development was in 2020.

The War Systems Wastewater Management Plan developed in 2010 identifies three areas in the county that are not anticipated to have gravity sewer service in the future.

These include an area in Northwest Cobb around Alatoona Lake, an area in southwest Cobb, south of Sweetwater Creek, and a very very small area in the northeast corner of the county that's only 0.28 square miles and is 90% or more already developed with septic tank subdivisions, and this plan was submitted to EPD.

So the changes in the beginning of 122-1 and 26 is to clarify what the water system's position is on public wastewater lift stations, and so it proposed um proposes code to clarify the water system's long-standing position of not supporting public lift stations being built for a new development by explicitly stating that developers shall not provide wastewater service to a new development with a public lift station.

Um other amendments to this section includes uh discontinuing approval of private lift stations for new single-family residential subdivisions, so private lift stations that serve more than one single family residential property.

Um, to my knowledge, there have only been six private lift stations approved by the county that serve an entire residential subdivision or town home community.

One of those was later removed by the HOA, and that subdivision was connected to Gravity Sewers, so we currently only have five that I'm aware of, and the last one was approved in 2009.

Um, and it's been our experience is very difficult for HOAs to maintain lift stations, and we get lots of calls from those HOAs asking us to come help them out.

So we are proposing to amend the code to not allow those in the future, and then the last change to actually lessen slightly the requirements for the use of a private lift station to serve multiple non-residential properties.

Any are there any comments or questions?

Uh one question just for clarification.

This is only for residential properties, it doesn't take into account commercial.

So it does take into account both.

Okay, the both of them.

So as far as public list stations, there would be no more public, uh, there wouldn't be a new public list station to serve commercial or residential properties.

There still can be uh this still provides for public lift stations.

I mean, sorry, private lift stations to serve multiple commercial properties as long as they meet the requirements that were already in the code, and we we took out one of the requirements to actually lessen the requirements for that situation.

Is this code precluding us from having a new lift station?

It does not preclude the county from installing a new lift station.

So like if the county wanted to install a regional lift station, so like for say example, the area that I said that we don't apply we don't plan to have sewer service in the public in southwest portion of the county.

If the county then decided we did want to provide sewer service in that area and we needed to install a regional lift station, the county could install a regional lift station if we wanted to.

It doesn't allow a developer to come in and install a public lift station for like one specific development, that then the county has to maintain a lift station for one specific new development.

Okay.

So go ahead.

So um not the fees, but we do have some public lift stations currently that were built by developers, and when those were built, they had to be built to our standards, but we didn't require any special fees.

And they're public.

Yes, there are a few.

Yes, like I said, the last the last one that we approved was in 2005.

Okay, yes, Commissioner.

Okay, so clarify for me if I'm reading this wrong.

But this would be um prohibiting private lift stations in residential subdivisions, properties, but they would still have to come to the board for approval for multiple non-residential, like uh commercial um major development hospital, something like that.

That or no, no, they would not have to come to the board for approval.

As long as they meet the requirements in the code, then they would we would the water system would approve them.

We're we approve them today for commercial for commercial from multiple commercial as long as they meet the the stipulations in the code.

So this is particularly addressing residential property, yeah.

That's what I was and and public, a new public list stations?

Public lift stations, public lift stations for residential properties on a singular public lift stations for both commercial and residential, and then and then it's addressing private lift stations for residential subdivisions.

Okay, but I thought we weren't doing we were prohibiting them in residential.

Yes, new sub yes.

So this says that we will no longer accept a public lift station for a new commercial or a new residential development, specific development, and then it also does not allow new private lift stations for new subdivisions.

Okay.

But you could have a private one to service your non-residential or commercial property.

That is correct.

Okay, so and who determines that a water system?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so you would look at um you would look have to see if this large development had the capacity already, or do you look at the surrounding impact?

So the new development wouldn't be served by sewer, so that this would be a new development, commercial development, multiple properties that is looking to develop and then is looking for how to get wastewater service.

So there wouldn't be gravity sewer available, they'd be looking for a to install a pump station, and the water system would approve it as long as it meets the requirements of the list listed in the code that are currently listed in the code.

Again, we didn't add any more requirements, we took one requirement away for new private lift stations for commercial.

That might solve the issue we were talking about.

I I had a question.

What happens in a scenario where there is a mixed use development whereas residential and commercial?

So it we would have to look at who owns the property, but and I would not think that that would be approved because our concern is having residents that own their entity.

If it's rental units, it would be okay.

If it's if it's um fee simple units, the problem is having somebody that lives in a condo, and then they're relying on another entity to maintain a lift station that if it's not maintained, then they don't have sewer service to their condo.

Okay.

Well, and something of that magnitude would have to have sewer.

I mean, I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

I mean, I mean are you done?

Yes, I didn't want to interrupt you.

Yeah, I think you know, getting to this land use discussion gets to an underlying element of this is that it does limit the intensity of development to not have the lift station, and in the meetings that Commissioner Garnble and I have been a part of, you know, it was shared that it comes down to a land use decision by the board with respect to areas that are served by septic versus sewer, and this code is going to limit development in certain areas, but the development in areas that is going to impact have a future land use designation that has lower intensity residential on it, and it would be that future land use designation that would drive the consideration of policy.

Um Commissioner Gamble's free to weigh in, but um that's that's why there's some concern, you know, particularly from development community as this and not just development community.

I was be very specific with the city of Ackworth, and then perceiving that they would like to develop more and have the opportunity to do so with the pending um large commercial development, and our current policy or framework is prohibitive, but it's driven by our future land use designation, and we would have to it's not just providing the infrastructure, it's changing the future land use map, then which would signal that you know more um intense infrastructure is needed.

Um the two go hand in hand as I'm listening to comments.

Okay, well, and while the two go hand in hand, code is not written to limit one area of the county over the other.

Um using the Northwest Corridor as an example, there's many other policies and agreements out there that is driving what can be done up in that area, and part of that is going back to wastewater does not stay in Cobb County, it goes to Pauling County, and Pauling County has we have a limited capacity.

So to sit here and say that this code is limiting the growth up there is very misleading because there's other factors that are contributing up there.

Also, we have to remember this language has been in place for decades.

The water system has been using this for decades.

Um they are changing and modifying the language just because of to clarify for interpretation purposes, but we also have to remember in our comprehensive plan the particular area that we're discussing up in Ackworth, sewer was never intended to be provided, even when we constructed the sewer plants to treat up there, and it's based on topography, it's based on streams, and there's other considerations that make that area difficult to develop.

So I don't view this code as limiting development in any area of the county, because it's something that the water department has been doing, it's been their policy, and as Judy said, you know, 2005 was the last public lift station, and then the last private one was in 2009.

So then it begs the question: are we going to start developing in areas where there's flooding, there's low-lying lands, there's wetlands, there's streams, there's creeks, and we're gonna put homeowners in potential jeopardy of flooding and catastrophic events just because we want to put in a lift station.

So there's many, and I know I'm you're looking confused, but there's many there's there's many things, and again, whoever came up with the comp plan decades ago did a really good job because if you look at where this the water department has essentially put no sewer available, and there is a layer on our GSI map that pretty much tells any developer sewer is not available here.

They did a really really good job because of the topography, other issues that are present.

So I don't see this as limiting a specific area, it's what we've been doing, and it's just clarifying language from a legal perspective.

Um I'm sorry if if a certain area thinks that this is limiting or preventing their growth opportunities, but that city in particular adopted our Northwest Land Vulnerability Study back in 2015, which specifically said this area was not going to have sewer.

So you can't say they didn't know because this is this documents were supposedly adopted by them, and it's again it's been the policy of the water department for decades.

Commissioner, I'll just respond.

I'm not arguing with you, and I accept a lot of your premises.

So when you use language, like you sit here and say that kind of is a is kind of a jabbing type of language, and all I am saying is that infrastructure is related to capacity to develop, it's inextricable.

There's certain types of infrastructure that facilitates certain types of development.

There are some types of infrastructure that can limit certain types of development.

I use that as an example, but it is not the only example.

I mean, providing an example or situation doesn't exclude any other factors or variables contributing to how something came into existence.

We will hear from others if we haven't.

I know I have already heard from others that develop property, and not recently, even as a commissioner, um, there are developers that have said that the infrastructure in like the furthest southwest end of the county that development is limited because there is not sewer in that area, it's not a it's just it is what it is, and again, you don't have to take my word from it.

I'm not a developer, but I'm sure that there are others that could make that point clear.

Looking at issues of flooding, yes, we have issues of flooding.

I'm not addressing issues of flooding.

I think that's a very unique nuanced situation that should be considered, but again, I don't think that lifting up the that occurrence should necessarily prohibit us just considering the fact that wastewater lift stations impact the intensity of development.

I'm just making the connection now, whether or not there's causation and correlation, the fact is they are related.

Infrastructure is related to intensity of development.

Well, and then also if if we are going to look at allowing lift stations throughout the county, then we also going to have to take a serious look at staffing, yes, budgeting, but then also the two plants that serve my area.

But then also the two plants that serve my area.

I'm sorry, I don't know everybody's, but my area.

If we open this up, because we never plan to service this area, we are then going to have to look at expanding capacity at two plants.

So then again, that's another budgeting.

That's another, and that's even if we can get approval for discharge, because as you know with Pauline County, part of the issue is they have a limited discharge.

They can treat sewer all you want, but they can't discharge, which is what limits our ability to develop in that corridor.

So we can look at this, but there's other things that are going to have to the board will have to address, and we will have to address rather quickly because we know development can go faster than upgrading our infrastructure.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

And there are neighboring jurisdictions, as I think I shared in a previous comment that do have some type of fee structure in place because there are ongoing costs with having lift stations that can take into account our staffing or maintenance or other resource needs for it.

So you're absolutely right.

This is, I mean, the way that the code is written today, if we make no changes, it will put us in that same situation.

So you know, if you're saying if we open it up, it's today it's opened.

What we're actually doing is restricting code, not opening anything up.

And that's the is and that's part of the question.

Um do we want to restrict it beyond what it is today?

Yeah.

I I understand that, but I I want to say it a different way because the way I read it, it also restricts this board from being able to make decisions on a case-by-case basis of what's best for a particular development.

Because it wouldn't be able to, it's not even something that will come before the board, it's just it prohibits us from being able to make decisions that we may need to make for future development.

So that's a different concern than I have as well.

Yeah.

The policy statement that you read, is that in the code?

Are we going to put that in the code?

Or you're just telling us the basis for the policy basis for code change.

The the policy statement that I read at the beginning is what is in the current code in the current.

So I was trying to say that the current code says already says that the water system does not support new public listations.

Okay, thank you.

But again, a policy statement, and then having to wait up law.

This is certainly much more clear.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, 122-130.

Uh, sewer considerations for new development.

This clarifies when gravity sewer shall be provided for new developments and when septic tanks may be utilized.

And it clarifies that all new non-residential developments shall provide gravity sewer to the development if it can be connected to sewer by gravity, regardless of the distance or easements required.

So those are things that we're already implementing.

It's just clarification of the language.

Section 122-152 clarifies that multifamily residential developments on a single tax parcel shall be served by water master meter unless otherwise approved by the water system.

And it changes master meter requirements for residential condominium type developments.

It requires a master meter shall be installed for each building rather than for the entire development.

This is to eliminate condominium HOAs having to maintain large water mains serving each building.

So from the right-of-way to each building.

All right.

So this section is being restructured, and there are various updates, cleanups, and clarifications in the changes.

Some of the changes include mobile units and commissaries are defined as food service establishments.

Clarifies the requirement of grease traps for food service establishments for improved environmental compliance.

Clarifies permitting maintenance inspections and record keeping requirements for better comprehension.

And it adds a requirement for food service establishments to display a discharge permit on a wall visible to managers to make current managers aware of the permitted number of seats and fixtures.

So we currently have a lot of problems with restaurants adding seats or doing renovations that change the grease trap size requirement without notifying us.

And that's a problem because then the grease trap is not functioning the way it should.

It's not able to remove the grease and oils properly if it's undersized.

But then it creates an even bigger problem if that restaurant gets sold.

So somebody comes in, they want to buy the restaurant, and they go, oh, this restaurant has 150 seats and two dishwashers and four sinks.

And so this is what I get to put in here.

But then when they come to get their permit to operate from us, we go, wait a minute.

That facility is only permitted for 100 seats or 120 seats.

So if you want to operate at 150 seats, you have to upsize the grease trap.

And that's not a cost that they had included when they thought they were going to buy that.

As we know, restaurants are expensive, they're risky, and so we end up getting a lot of pushback with the person who already went out and bought this facility or already entered into a rental agreement, and then they don't want to upsize the grease trap because they thought they were buying something that was already permitted.

So we're trying to add some requirements to post some of these requirements on the wall to hopefully make the operators of the restaurants understand that they have specific requirements that they can't they can't change those things.

So I think somebody gets a permit, it gets put in a drawer, or maybe it's at a different office, and the person operating the facility might not understand what the requirements are.

Speaking from actual experience, yes.

All right, section uh section 122-18.

Sorry, 122-193 and 122-265 just corrects references to applicable amended code sections.

These were provided by legal.

All right, any questions on anything above before I move into the stormwater part?

All right.

So next part is we're adding a new article, proposing to add a new article, Article 3, stormwater management, and currently is proposed that this would be effective June 1st, 2026.

So in this section, we have definitions.

Definitions of terms used within the article include impervious services, which does not include swimming pool in the definition.

It includes uh definition for private stormwater management systems and facilities, public stormwater management system and facilities, public water influence zone, stormwater service fees, and others, but those are some of the highlights of the definitions.

122-302 purpose and policy.

Excuse me, Judy, a question.

Um, going back to your previous slide, Judy.

Do we need to add spas or however we're going to define in the pool ordinance?

Because I'm guessing if it does not include swimming pools, it would not include spas or whatever we're going to redefine that as.

So it doesn't list swimming pools.

It gives you know a general definition of impervious that that swimming pools is not out, so it doesn't specifically exclude it.

So I don't know that we need to specifically exclude spas, but we would treat SPA like a swimming pool as far as implementing the definition.

But we we can look into that to see if that's something that we that we need to address.

So uh purpose and policy establishes the objective of the article, which is to provide for the equitable distribution of the cost of stormwater management services by imposing a user fee based on upon each user's contribution of stormwater runoff.

They are findings, a list of findings.

I won't go through all of them, but a couple of them are that the management of stormwater and other surface water discharges affects the health, safety, and welfare of all residents and businesses in the unincorporated area of Cobb.

The county is required to comply with state and federal regulatory requirements and its national pollutant discharge elimination system phase one, municipal separate storm sewer system permit.

This is known as the MS4 permit.

It's imperative that proceeds from stormwater service be dedicated to stormwater services management and facilities.

And the area of imperfect surface on each parcel is the most important factor influencing the cost of stormwater management services.

Therefore, it is the most appropriate parameter for calculating a periodic stormwater service fee.

122-303 is uh establishment of stormwater utility.

This establishes a stormwater utility in unincorporated areas of the county and provides for the county to provide stormwater services to a municipality through an intergovernmental agreement.

122-304 scope of responsibility describes the stormwater water system stormwater services.

It defines structures maintained by the water system, including structures located in easements on residential property and that are shown on a subdivision final plat or have been dedicated to and accepted by the county for maintenance.

Also includes dedicated and fee simple to and accepted by the county through this subdivision acceptance process.

So if a fee simple parcel is dedicated to us, we would we would uh take care of that detention pond on that parcel.

It states that the water system may perform channel stabilization work on residential property within the portions of the public water influence zone, and it states that stormwater facilities located on private property that have not been dedicated to and accepted by the county for maintenance shall be and remain legal responsibility of the property owner.

Section 122305 establishment of an enterprise fund establishes an enterprise fund to be used exclusively for stormwater services and unincorporated Cobb or any municipality with whom the county has entered into an agreement to provide stormwater services.

122-311 service charges rates and fees generally establishes a fee mechanism, states that the actual rates and fees charged by the water system shall be adopted by the Board of Commissioners and published in a separate rate or fee schedule, and it defines residential and non-residential customer categories.

Section 122-312, stormwater management and miscellaneous charges and fees establishes a fee based on the area of impervious surface on each developed parcel and establishes late fee and return check fees.

122-313 stormwater service fee exemptions establishes the following exemptions from a stormwater service fee.

One undeveloped land, two railroad tracks, and that's a state requirement.

Three, public streets and airport runways.

Next, basins at drinking water and wastewater treatment plants.

Next, properties at uh covered as part of Dobbins Air Reserve base.

This is stormwater permit with the state of Georgia because they have their own permit and have to follow those requirements under their own permit.

And then properties that contain 100% of stormwater runoff within the property for all storm events up to and including the 100-year 24-hour storm event.

Section 122-314 bills, payments, delinquencies, and adjustments establishes that fee will be charged on a monthly water bill, and that properties not served by the water system receive a separate stormwater bill, and establishes procedures for requesting and applying adjustments to the fees.

Section 122-315 credits.

This section allows that property owners may apply for a reduction in the stormwater fee for certain activities that reduce the negative impact on the stormwater utility, help the county comply with its permit, andor have reduced impact on surface waters, and the activities are defined in the credit manual that will be approved by the Board of Commissioners.

Establishes an appeals process for the denial of a stormwater fee adjustment, which goes through the water system director, then the board of commissioners, and finally the superior court.

So that's that's the end of the storm summary of the stormwater code.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Wow.

No questions.

Well, we have yes.

Well, I as you know, I'm giving a another presentation to get into a little bit more detail on the fee itself.

So I'll guessing there will be questions on that presentation.

So maybe just holding them till then.

Let's go on then.

We're not hearing any questions.

Did you have a question?

Okay.

Do you want me to go to the next one?

All right, we'll keep rolling then.

All right.

All right.

So I'll also prepared a presentation to get into a little bit more specifics about the proposed fee.

Um that is not covered in the code.

So a little bit of history.

Um stormwater is something that we've been looking at for a long time.

Most recently, the water system started looking at stormwater services and how we charge for stormwater beginning in 2020.

But the water system first started looking at this issue back in about 2005-2006.

So we've looked at this off and on for many years on how to address this issue.

Um let's see.

In December 2021, um, there was an agenda item where the board supported the development of a proposal for enhancing stormwater management program and developing a proposal to establish a separate stormwater utility fee to fund the program.

After that, there were various presentations to the board and several public um public meetings to talk about our results, and then in March of 2024, the water system brought forth a proposal for code amendments to establish a stormwater fee based on impervious surface, and um, and then to to amend the code appropriately.

That um those code amendments were then tabled, and then the water system brought back another agenda item in July of 2024 where those advanced were then tabled indefinitely.

So the water system is now bringing back a proposal to change the way that we charge for stormwater services, um, and then and some there are some revisions to the previous proposal.

So I'll go through a little bit of background before I get into what's changing in case there are people that may be watching this that don't know some of the history, so I didn't want to just jump into just the changes.

So why change the way that we are charging for stormwater?

Well, we can't determine the exact stormwater revenue with the current fee structure.

Uh what we do estimate the revenues are less than what our budget is, and ARPA funds are making up that difference, but ARPA funds will be ending in 2026.

Water use is not the best measure of a property's impact on the stormwater system.

Uh there are approximately 7,000 properties in unincorporated cob that are not paying for the stormwater services that they receive because they are not water system customers.

There's pressure from the public to enhance services.

The water system needs additional funding to catch up and keep up with repairs and to transition from reactive to proactive maintenance, and the county is going to need additional regional detention field facilities in the future to address stormwater issues.

So currently the way that we charge for stormwater is through water and sewer rates.

So we have two different rates.

We have rates for our customers that are in cities where we do not provide stormwater services, and then we have higher rates for our customers that are in unincorporated cob in the city of Mapleton because we're contracted with the City of Mapleton to provide stormwater services to them.

So customers pay for stormwater based on the amount of water and sewer that they use.

Um of counties in the in the metro area.

Our rates are very competitive, and especially when you consider looking at this rates, our rates are lower than other than other counties, and only us in City of Atlanta fund stormwater projects out of their water and sewer rates.

Nobody else does that.

So a little couple of examples of how stormwater rates are calculated and why it's not the best best way to charge for stormwater.

If you have a residential customer that uses 3,000 gallons of water and they're on sewer, they're currently paying a dollar and 32 cents a month for stormwater.

But if they're on septic, so they're not paying the sewer charges, then they're only paying 48 cents.

So a residential property that may be watering in the summer and uses 10,000 gallons.

If they're on sewer, they would be paying $4.89 for stormwater.

If they're on septic, they would be paying $2.09.

And then similar for commercial, they have different rates.

But they also is the same thing that they're paying more of the more water that they use.

So next slide, this is an example.

Just to kind of give you a visual of the median pro residential property in Calp County is 3,700 square feet of impervious surface.

So that's in the middle of all of our residential properties.

So the typical middle middle home that uses 5,000 gallons of water and is on sewer is paying $2.34 a month for stormwater.

A drug store that is 55,000 square feet of impervious and only uses 3,000 gallons of water and is on sewer, only pays $1.56 a month for stormwater.

So almost 15 times the amount of impervious, but is paying less for stormwater services by the way that we are currently charging.

So as I said, we can't we can't we don't know the exact amount we charge for stormwater with it being rolled into our rates the way it is.

Um partly because our residential water rates are on a tiered rate structure and you pay a little bit different for each tier.

So when we take in the revenue, we don't take in like how much re-revenue we charge from each tier, we just take in how much we charge for water.

And previously, we also the way we booked our water revenue, we booked the base charge with the water revenue, so it made it hard to account for how much was base charge and how much was actually water.

Um we have it this year.

We actually separated that out, so that helps us estimate a little bit better what we're bringing in for stormwater, um, and a rough estimate is that we currently are bringing in seven and a half million dollars for stormwater, but our current budget is 9.2 million.

So I don't think that we're actually bringing in as much revenue the way we are charging today as what our budget is.

So if we were to continue to charge for stormwater the way we are, we really should increase our rates to cover our budget.

And so if we increased our rates, the typical home uses 5,000 gallons, we would need to reduce increase the rate to what they're paying $2.34 now, they would be paying $2.93 through the rates to get the budget that we need just for today.

So I'll get into a little bit later, but we are proposing that we actually increase our budget to meet the demands that we feel like that we're not keeping up with today.

So if we were to increase our budget to 17 million dollars, that typical residential property would then need to pay five dollars and thirty-seven cents a month.

So we also would increase the commercial rates as well, but commercials there's not like a typical commercial property, so I didn't provide an example in this, but just an example of how much we really need to increase the water and sewer rates if we're gonna continue to fund stormwater through water and sewer.

So eliminating the transfer to the general fund would provide little additional funding for stormwater services, so a little bit of a history of the transfer of the general fund from water and sewer revenue.

Transfer started back in 1998 at 5% at 2003, it was up to 10%, which is the max that's allowed by our con our bond confidence.

2012 to 2016, it was reduced to six percent, 2017 it went back to 10 percent, 2020 to 2026, it's been reduced to 4%.

So our FY25, sorry, FY26 budget transfer amount is about 11.3 million, but less than 300,000 of that is from stormwater revenue.

So if we eliminated transferring water and sewer revenue, the small portion of that water and sewer revenue that we estimate is from stormwater is only about 300,000.

So we really if we eliminated the transfer, we shouldn't take water and sewer revenue and move it for stormwater projects.

Commissioner Brol has a comment or question.

So Judy, that's based on what we charge now for stormwater through the water and sewer customers that we can charge.

But through this with the flight 475 for residential, and then you're gonna calculate impervious for commercial, correct?

Yes.

Um in the previous slides, I think you said something about an enterprise fund just for stormwater, so it will be separate or no.

Yes, so if I'll I'll get into that in in future slides, but yes, if we collect a separate fee for stormwater, would be a separate line item on the bill, and we would then be able to count that revenue separately to ensure that it's only used for stormwater, right?

But when we transfer to the general fund, it's a percentage, like it's at four percent now of the total revenue generated in water, correct?

So currently currently it's a percentage of the water and sewer revenue, so it would be up to the board in the next budget cycle to decide what revenue you want to calculate the percentage on.

If you want to keep just doing it from for water and sewer and not include the stormwater, you could do that.

But right now it's the total revenue you collect because you don't separate it out, you're just you're getting these figures from what you charge for stormwater, but it all goes into the whole water system, correct?

Correct, because it's water and sewer fees.

But the transfer is the total revenue, including water, sewer, stormwater, everything, the total revenue because it's not separated out, right?

It's charged separately, but it's all coming into the water fund collectively.

It's not currently charged separately.

That's why it's part of the water and sewer transfer because it's not charged separately.

If we create a separate stormwater fee as a separate charge on the bill, we then can track that revenue separately, and then it would be up to the board to decide what all the revenue is that's included in the transfer.

The board gets to decide that.

If the board just wants to just to continue transferring water and sewer and not include the stormwater, now that we would have a separate fee and the stormwater would be pulled out, the board could choose to do that.

Okay, but my point is right now the water transfer is a total revenue of what is in the water fund, the total um 11 million times four percent, uh whatever your total revenue correct.

Yes, and four percent of that total revenue, which includes everything right now, is transferred out to the general fund.

Yes, so I see what you're saying that based on um I'm not necessarily what we charge but who we can charge is your is that 300,000 that it would impact that would could be taken out, in other words, that would and I know that's not gonna cover it, but I've been fighting this water transfer for 15 years, and I know it's legal and I know it's been done since 1998, but to me it's not right to generate fees and water and transfer them out.

So I appreciate the support to reduce it incrementally, like the plan was, and like you said in 2016 when we rolled back the millage to match the increase in the digest, we had a shortfall the following year, and in 17 and went back up to 10.

We started all over, and I thank you, madam chair, for help helping with the budget to decrease it incrementally.

Um since you've been chair, and we're almost there, so I want to keep going.

Certainly, yes.

So I I want to make sure I I'm clear on this because I agree with what Commissioner Burrell just said, but I'm I'm reading the slide as you articulating that even if that not saying we shouldn't get there, but even if that were zero, the impact of stormwater is negligible.

You you're showing that even if we did no transfer, it's still not a significant amount of money that goes back to stormwater.

Correct.

So this this 11 million, if you got all of that back out of that 11.3 million, only three hundred thousand would go to stormwater infrastructure.

Correct.

Okay.

Yes.

And we're still having water increase, right?

Is with the transfer still in place too.

Right.

Right.

But that's not just stormwater.

No, I know, but I think the purpose of the slide is to just articulate that out of that transfer, if if we didn't do anything, and she still got all this 11.3 million dollars into the water budget, only 300,000 of that would go toward stormwater infrastructure.

That's what we'll debate this.

I don't know.

And I'm not debating whether or not we should do the trend.

I'm just trying to make sure we're we're clear on what the slide is articulating.

That's all I'm saying.

So I we uh we agree on the impact.

What I'm saying is that it this the 300,000 is not a matter of degree tied to the water transfer.

It's simply if the transfer was zero, she would get 11.3 million dollars back into be able to use for water, the water system would still have that 11.3 million.

Out of that 11.3, 300,000 of that would be the only thing going towards stormwater in the current state.

That's that's what the slide is articulating to me.

Yes, sir.

Okay, but that okay.

I I see where y'all are going, but that is based on the customers that you we can charge for stormwater based on the unincorporated cob, you can't charge the cities that do their own, right?

Correct.

So um if it's until it's separated out, like what you're proposing and charged, and that money stays in stormwater, you don't know.

You don't know.

And the we even if that 11 million went all to the water and sewer, why do we keep having increases in water and sewer?

If we didn't transfer it out, we could keep it there.

I'm just saying okay, let's move on because it's we're beating a dead horse here.

I'm sorry, it's not okay.

So it not to date debate or deliver this right now, but from the legal department, can you give us a legal response as far as this 11.3 million dollar transfer?

If the board of commissioners has the authority to essentially direct how money is spent, why can't as a board we take that 11.3 that's supposed to be transferred into us, and then why can't we dedicate it to stormwater?

Again, we don't have to debate that right now, but if if you guys want to give us a legal versus it's not debatable, there's a clear answer.

You you you could it would be for the water, however, they would prioritize to be able to use the money.

It isn't a legal question, it would be ultimately a budgeting question of where they need the money to go.

This the analysis, as I understand that the director has put together, is articulated by Commissioner Allen, which is the estimate, even if you you you eliminated the the withdrawal, really only about 300,000 of that would be impacted by stormwater utility.

You could up her budget if you wanted to even more and say all of it has to be, you know, if you had the ability to be able to do it, she's creating a mechanism for you to be able to get the money to actually be able to up her budget so that she can address these issues.

So let me address it.

Okay, so the issue is is that we have some customers that we don't provide stormwater services to the entire city of Kennesaw, entire city of Ackworth, the entire city of Powder Springs.

If we take water and sewer revenue and use it for stormwater, we are either using some of the money that they paid us for stormwater, and we're not providing that to them, or they could argue that we in essence have lowered our rates for water and sewer for our customers, and theirs are paying higher, and our agreements with them say that we have to charge them the same amount as we charge our customers for water and sewer.

So that's that's why we can't do that.

Okay, thank you.

Chairwoman, just one comment too, to kind of address something that Commissioner Burrow brought up, and that was you know, could we just keep the rate the same and not continue to you know increase the water rate?

And each year, right?

The water authority increases their costs to us for the purchase of that water.

So Judy, you might want to just share that.

So whether we raise the rates or not at the county level, we are paying more for that water.

So I just wanted to bring that to your attention too.

Yes, yes.

So even if we eliminated the transfer, we would still need to increase our rates because we number one, our expenses keep going up.

Our primary one of our primary expenses is the cost to purchase water.

But we also need to fund capital projects, construction projects that are coming up, and we currently don't have enough money to fund some very large projects that we have coming up in the next couple of years.

Even if we eliminate the transfer, we still wouldn't have enough money.

Okay, next slide.

So the water systems proposed option is a fee based on impervious surface.

There are more than 60 stormwater utilities in Georgia that charge a fee based on impervious area, including Ackworth, Ostell, Powder Springs, and Smyrna.

Impervious surfaces are hardened surfaces such as driveways, sidewalks, roofs, etc.

When a fee is charged this way, it's charged to all properties, residential, commercial, schools, churches, governmental, every property.

It creates a dedicated funding for stormwater management, and it ensures that stormwater revenue is not being used for water and sewer projects, and water and sewer revenue is not being used for stormwater projects.

We are proposing a flat residential fee of $4.75 a month, and then a commercial fee that's calculated based on the prorated comparison to the typical home.

So it would be a calculated based on what's called an equivalent residential unit.

So that is the median impervious surface for our residential properties, which is 3,700 square feet.

So to calculate it, you take the area of impervious surface on a commercial property or anything that's non-residential, you divide it by that 3,700, and then you multiply it times the 475 or whatever that residential rate is to get the commercials prorated share or prorated fee.

So how did we come up with 475?

So this is a table that has been presented before.

So just to meet our current FY26 operating budget and our capital improvement program just for stormwater.

The standard fee of uh per ERU, equivalent residential unit, would be need to be $2.57.

We are proposing to add some positions and equipment.

So we currently don't have any maintenance crews in stormwater.

We have that in water and sewer, but in stormwater we contract all of our maintenance out.

There are some repairs that need to be done that are small repairs, and it's hard to get a contractor to go out there because it's it's minimum repair, so it's a lot for them to roll a crew out there.

So having a crew of our own could help us to address some of the smaller repairs.

Also, we need additional positions to do more inspections of private stormwater infrastructure to make sure that it's compliant.

Um we need more staff to get more projects out the door.

So adding uh 1.1 million for that would be uh increase the fee 30 cents to 287.

Um the next line item is additional funding for contracted pipe repairs on residential property.

So we currently have about a hundred work orders backed up for pipe repairs on residential property.

We are not able to keep up with the funding that we have for these repairs.

We have residential properties have had sinkholes that they've been waiting to get repaired for five years or more.

Um it's hard for our staff, obviously, it's very hard for the homeowner to have a sinkhole in their property that they're waiting years and years and years to be repaired.

Um so, but it complicates us even getting the work done because we spend a lot of time having to keep going back to that property, and they say it's getting worse.

Come out and look at it, and we go out and look at it, and we go, yep, it's getting worse, it's on the list.

And then they call us the next six months and say it's getting worse.

Please come out and look at it.

So we're spending a lot of time, and staff staff to look at things over and over and over again because we just don't have the time the money to get caught up and get them done.

So adding additional money to help us get caught up with those repairs and stay caught up would help.

So the next line item is to fund some additional open channel maintenance, a short distance downstream of a county pipe, and to provide limited riprap for residential property owners.

This these are new services.

These are some things that some other jurisdictions do that we don't currently do.

So these are things that would help current residential property owners with open channel maintenance that currently is completely on them.

So it's not going to fix everything for them, but it's a little bit more than what we're doing today.

The next item is to increase lake storage volume purchase price.

We have a program where private private lake owners, private dam owners, if they need to repair their dam but don't have enough money to do that, where we will pay them money if they were lower the permanent pool level in that lake to provide additional storage when it rains, we'll purchase that from them, and then they can use that money to repair their dam.

We have not increased what we pay per cubic foot, I think, since we implemented that probably in the mid-2000s, so obviously costs have gone up.

We would like to be able to increase what we're paying for that.

Next next item is additional funding for existing water system detention ponds.

So these are detention ponds and subdivisions.

Again, we have a lot of backlogged work orders that we haven't gotten up to.

We are not mowing these ponds the way that we should.

So we need additional fundings to be able to mow these ponds, not every month, but certainly on a regular maintenance schedule, then we are getting that done today.

Next line item is funding for future regional projects.

We have two regional detention ponds in Cobb County.

And those are very expensive projects, but we haven't done any since we did those, which were were many years ago.

We know that stormwater is a continuing issue, and we really need to be looking at areas where we can do additional regional projects, but we need money to start saving money for that so we can start looking for opportunities and at some point in the future fund some additional projects.

This is new from the last proposal, but is to fund a portion of stormwater pipe repairs in the cob right of way.

So currently, Cobb DOT is responsible for all the stormwater maintenance and repairs in the cob in the road right-of-way.

They fund that out of SPLOST, but they run out of money before the end of the SPLOSS.

They currently don't have enough money to keep up with those.

So this would provide additional funding to be able to complete help them get caught up on their repairs and stay caught up on their repairs as well.

So if you add all those items together, that's how we get to the 475.

So that explains what additional services, what additional funding would provide, like what services the additional funding would provide to get us to the 475.

So if we implement a separate fee, then we would also reduce the water and sewer fee.

As I mentioned, we have a higher rate for the properties that we provide stormwater services.

We would no longer need that higher rate.

So this slide is just an example of what a residential property owner's new bill would look like.

The bill on the left is what the bill would look like with the rates that will be in effect January 2026.

And then the one on the right would be it with the stormwater stormwater fee, so you'd have an additional line item for stormwater, but you would reduce your water and sewer rates.

So while the stormwater fee is 475, for a customer that uses 5,000 gallons of water, the bill increase is only $2.41.

So there's some offset from what they're already paying.

So the next slide is just to show that.

So for a customer that uses 3,000 gallons of water and is on sewer a month, they're paying less, they're paying $132.

So with the implementation of a fee, their monthly bill would go up $3.43.

And a house that uses 10,000 gallons of water a month, like when they're watering, they're actually paying $489.

So they would actually save money on the months that they're watering because they're paying more now than what the $475 is.

So just to go back to the visual example that I showed before.

For the typical home, the to the increase is going to be $2.41.

But for the example of the drugstore, their increase is going to be $69.14 because they're not paying their proportionate impact now.

So their commercial properties, the their rates are going to increase quite a bit.

And then go to the next slide to provide a couple other examples.

A fast food restaurant, which does use a good bit of water for the size of the property.

This is an example, it's not going to apply to every restaurant because all restaurants are different.

And then just a couple of other examples.

An example of a median medium-sized church that I pulled, their increase was go about about $116 a month.

A large church, again, all depends on current water usage, but this example, their monthly increase would be $3.22 a month.

And then in this example, a big box store, their increases of a little over $400 a month.

So again, these are just examples, and everything will be different depending on how much water the property currently uses.

So property owners will have the opportunity, yes.

Excuse me, Commissioner Burrell.

Based on their water usage, but also their impervious.

So if you have a large shopping center, like or like the avenues or the battery, it's all concrete parking and stores.

This drug store, yes.

Okay.

So yes, it all depends on how much impervious surface the property has, and then how much water they currently use as to how much that how much of an increase they're gonna see.

But they will also have the credit manual to be able to apply if they're managing their water in a certain way, then they'll be credited.

So there are opportunities to reduce the fee, which is you're leading me right into the next the next slide, so that's perfect.

So there are some opportunities for property owners to reduce their fee through what we have as a credit manual.

So the items we currently have listed for the majority of properties, the maximum total reduction that would be available would be 40%.

There's one instance I'll get to where it would bump it up to 50.

Um credit, so properties would get a credit for maintaining the stormwater detention facilities meeting current standards, and that category has like up to 40%, but there's several different standards that have to be met.

So there's a they might get 10%, they might get 20%, they might get 30%, they might get 40%.

It all depends on their current detention facility and what standards it currently meets.

The next bullet is a credit for exceeding the stormwater standard.

So if a property is exceeding the counties and the Georgia stormwater management manuals standards, so both, they could qualify for an extra 10%.

So in this case, they would get all of the credit, they would have to get earn all the credit for the first bullet, and then if they went above and beyond that, they could get up to an additional 10% for 50%.

Another thing a property can do to apply for credit is to show that they're maintaining their septic tank.

Um next one is impervious surface reduction.

So if a property owner goes in and actually reduces the amount of impervious surface on their property, they're going to get a fee reduction because it's going to change their calculation.

But in addition to that, we're proposing a short-term like additional reduction to give them incentive above and beyond just reducing reducing their fee.

So if you have a residential property that has a lot of impervious and they reduce it a little bit, they still have more than somebody that's already paying $475, so it's kind of hard to say we're gonna give you a credit when you still have more than other properties that are paying the same thing.

Um the next one is national pollution discharge eliminating system, industrial stormwater general permit compliance, so industrial facilities that are following their states, they actually have a industrial permits actually facility some have a permit with the state, but the state requires us to enforce their permit.

They actually have a industrial permits actually facilities, some have a permit with the state, but the state requires us to enforce their permit.

So we have to do inspections.

We have to make sure that they enforce their permit.

So this is compliance with their state permit, but we're kind of the enforcer.

Next slide.

Next credit is low impact parcel.

So if a if a parcel has a small amount of impervious surface on a very large parcel and it meets the percentage, then they would get a discount for that because we recognize the more impervious, the more pervious you have surrounding the impervious, the less runoff you have from the property.

So that gives some credit for small amount of impervious on a very large parcel.

Next bullet is watershed improvement project.

So we have some current projects with the Corps of Engineers in the northwest part of the county where we're trying to work with them to do some stream bank restorations and some other things to improve stream systems.

And so for that project or for like any future projects where we're trying to go in and we're trying to improve stream quality or restore a stream bank, if a property owner will grant us easements for that and help us with that, then they would get a credit for helping us with that, the access to that to that to do that project instead of us having to pay for the easement.

They granted the easement.

There's also credit for watershed stewardship.

So people who will go out and participate in our stream cleanups and other things that we do around the county that are volunteer that we use volunteers to do to improve water quality, they get a credit for that.

And then watershed education, people who will come to some of our education programs.

So if you come to some of our public things where we talk about septic tank maintenance, where we talk about how to maintain stormwater systems, then you can apply for a credit for attending those classes.

And then the last one is adopt a pond.

So this is one where in a residential subdivision where the water system is currently owns a pond.

If the HOA wants to help us with mowing that pond so that we are not having to go out as often and mow it, and they take that cost off of us and have an agreement with us to do it, then they could earn a credit for the parcels in the subdivision for helping us with that maintenance.

Any questions on the credit manual?

Okay.

So summary of the proposed changes and services.

Stop accepting new residential detention ponds, but we continue to maintain ponds currently owned.

Start structural maintenance of open channels on residential property in the public water influence zone, and that is defined as six pipe diameters.

So if the pipe coming off the county right-of-way is a 12-inch pipe, then we would maintain six feet downstream of the pipe, the actual channel itself.

And then next is uh mentioned previously starting a start providing a limited amount of riprap to residential property owners with severe erosion issues.

In this case, we would give the riprap, which is large stone that you put on this on the stream banks or the channel, if it's a if it's just a um a ditch, the property owner would have to place it, but at least us providing the stone helps mitigate some of their costs and lowers their costs to take care of their erosion problems.

Um, and another thing, and we are in the process currently of moving stormwater development inspections to the water system.

We had some positions approved as part of our 2026 budget for us to help take over those inspections.

So that's really already in our budget for this year that this would help fund.

So I just want to clarify that the water system will continue to maintain the structures on residential property that we're currently maintaining.

Um we maintain pipes and drainage easements that are shown on the subdivision platform, located in residential subdivisions with public streets.

In addition for subdivisions that were built before pipes were shown on the plat, the water system will maintain pipes that are connected to a pipe in the right-of-way.

If it appears to be consistent with the construction of that time, so it's consistent with the material of the pipe in the right-of-way, and there's access to it that somebody hasn't built something right on top of the pipe, so we can't get to it, and the property owner grants us an easement.

Those we bring to the board and ask the board to accept those, and then we would take over maintenance of those.

If we looking at how the pipe was built, we believe that it was put in when the subdivision was put in, even though it's not shown on the plat.

Um so the water system we recognize that increasing the stormwater fee is not going to solve all the county's stormwater issues, as not going to solve all the private property stormwater issues.

Nobody sizes pipes to handle very large storm events.

So there'll still be flooding if we have a hurricane that comes through or extremely large rain event.

Um we can't stop all flooding.

Uh but the additional funding does allow us to enhance our services, and before we can consider taking on any further responsibilities, we really need to keep up with the get caught up with the repairs that we have outstanding today and keep up with what is our responsibility today.

So a summary of the changes in the fee from the previous proposal is that we added 1.5 million dollars per year of funding for Cobb DOT drainage repairs.

We removed funding to move stormwater development inspections from Comdev to water from the list of additional services because as I mentioned, that's already put in our budget for this year.

We are proposing a flat residential rate instead of a tiered structured rate for residential, and we're proposing that the rate per equivalent residential unit be changed from $4 to $4.75.

And that is impacted by changing the residential fee structure.

So if you don't have tiered rates for residential with some higher rates, then the base rate has to increase, and then also adding the funding for uh for the the 1.5 million dollars for repairs and DOT right away, that also increases the rate.

Um major changes in the code from the previous proposed.

No, it was oh okay.

Sorry.

Major changes in code from the previous proposal related to the fee, swimming pools removed from the definition of impervious.

We added a fee exemption for any property that contains or infiltrates 100% of runoff from a hundred year storm event.

We added a findings section.

Um we added that the credit manual was to be approved by the board of commissioners, um, and we adjusted the fee of peals process to include going from the water system director to the BOC to the superior court.

Um, some other code changes that are not related to the fee, and the water system would recommend that the board strongly consider these even if we don't move forward with the fee, is changing language regarding nuisances for not maintaining private pipes and moving that to chapter 83, where the other uh code nuisances are covered, and then um also as part um also is no longer accepting detention ponds in new subdivisions.

That's not really part of the fee, but that's something that the board should consider.

So uh I mentioned that there's a lot of other stormwater fees based on impervious throughout the state and even in Cobb County.

So I wanted to share a little bit.

Our proposed fee is four dollars and seventy-five cents for a home.

Um, if you look in Cobb County, that's pretty much in the middle where everybody else is.

Um, they range in Smyrna from $3.52 to Ackworth, Austell, and Kennesaw are up to $5.

And then also the $475 is is really pretty much in the middle also of a lot of other utilities around the state.

So just wanted to show that comparison of kind of how that fee compares to how others have have implemented this fee.

All right, so next steps.

Um code amendments, it requires code amendments to implement a fee based on impervious, and I went through those in the previous presentation.

There'll be public hearings on the code amendments November 12th and November 20th, and then presented to the board to consider for approval on November 20th.

There would be a separate board of commissioners' agenda item on the 20th to actual set the rate.

The rate's not listed in the code, so there would be another agenda item to establish what the rate is.

Um, if the fee approved, the water system is proposing to implement it June 1st, 2026.

Um, there's some because we put this project on pause, there's still some things that we need to do to get this in our billing system.

Um, and also at the same time, we would we would ask the board to reduce the rates.

We would basically eliminate the rates for Mapleton and unincorporated, and then we would just have one list of rates for water and sewer for for all of our customers.

So also wanted to mention mention that we have a website, Cobb County.gov slash stormwater funding, where we have a lot of information about the fee, and we also have links links to the code and links to the credit manual, the full credit manual.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for Judy at this time?

Well I I don't have any questions, but just a comment to thank you.

I know this has been kind of a long time coming and um and just going back and taking feedback from the community last year and feedback from the commissioners and making the appropriate adjustments.

So thank you.

You're welcome.

Did uh any other comments?

All right, thank you again.

Thank you all for being a part of this meeting, and thank you to all of our presenters.

We do have a board of commissioners regular meeting this evening at 7 p.m.

Please feel free to join us at that time.

This work session is now adjourned.

Thank you.