Good evening and welcome to tonight's Board of Commissioners meeting this November twentieth, two thousand and twenty-five.

I'm pleased tonight that we have Pastor Tim Locke with East Cop Presbyterian Church.

He will be providing our invocation.

That will be followed by the pledge, which will be brought by firefighter Jake Rogers of Station Eighteen B shift.

For those of you who are willing and able, please stand for both our invocation and our pledge.

Please pray with me.

As they were in exile in Babylon, a foreign land.

As they were the minority in that situation in that setting.

Our meeting is now called to order.

At the top of this meeting, we do have three presentations.

The first presentation will be brought by Commissioner Gambrel with respect to a donation to SafePath.

For those of you who are here as a part of that presentation, I ask that you please join Commissioner Gambrill up front.

Thank you.

And unfortunately, Safe Path had an issue come up, and they will not be able to be here.

But it is my great pleasure to thank all of the departments that helped participate in this year, Gambril's Great Pumpkin Contest.

With your votes and support, we raised a thousand four hundred and sixty-five dollars and ninety-four cents, plus seventy-five dollars from the Gambrel Great Pumpkin Auction for a total of one thousand five hundred and forty dollars and ninety-four cents.

So now for the winners.

The winning pumpkins this year, and when I call your department, please come up.

Second place goes to Cobb Public Libraries.

And in first place, goes to our senior services.

Next up, we proudly recognize once again Walton High School, and this time for volleyball.

And we have with us tonight the this year's team for state champions.

And um that's a great looking crew, don't y'all think?

So where's Coach Ashley?

Oh, he looks like one of the students.

Oh my gosh.

I should have known you didn't have on a t-shirt.

So um I'm gonna pass out the certificates, and maybe you're gonna help me.

And um I'm gonna read one because they're all kind of the same, but then we'll hand them out, and then I want you to say a few more team captain.

We have three.

We have three, you three?

Are you seniors?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay.

The first one is Ella Cobb.

The Cobb County Board of Commissioners congratulates you on your exemplary performance this season, which helped the Walton Raiders secure the Georgia High School Association 6A state volleyball championship, marking the sixteenth state title in school history.

Winning the championship with a three-one match victory against the state's top ranked team is a remarkable feat and a testament to your hard work and dedication.

This is the 20th day of November, Cobb County Board of Commissioners.

They all have practice.

Oh, the rest of the people are here.

So we congratulate you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um grew up in Cobb County.

This is my first year coaching back in Cobb County, and incredibly grateful and blessed to be part of the community.

So thank you for your support.

Thank you.

So we're gonna take a picture, and then the parents are welcome to come up and get in the picture too.

Because I know they're proud folks here tonight.

All right, can you guys open your test?

I don't like it.

Yeah, there's a whole bunch of person.

That's good.

All right, here we go.

So he's out of hooks.

Sorry.

There we go.

Thanks.

Congratulations.

Who's next?

Lisa.

Thank you, and last but not least, those of you who are here as a part of recognizing November as Native American Heritage Month.

Please meet me up front.

It's an honor to have all of you here today.

And I believe we were privileged to have Megan here during the first time that we honored you and recognize the Metro Atlanta Native American organization.

And it's a great privilege to be here and to share this proclamation with you and those who are viewing you here in this room and at home.

Whereas the history, culture, and governance of our nation have been profoundly influenced and shaped by the sophisticated systems of law, diplomacy, and community established by the indigenous peoples of this land.

And whereas the values and traditional teachings of indigenous Americans remain an integral part of the United States legacy, contributing to the freedom, prosperity, and shared strength of our nation.

And we're as the enduring customs, the traditions, and resiliency of Native peoples continue to inspire future generations and serve as a lasting testament to your vital role in our history and the identity of this country.

And we're as recognition of Native Americans and their contributions was first celebrated through Native American Awareness Week in 1976 and expanded by Congress and President George H.W.

Bush in 1990, officially designating November as National American Indian Heritage Month, now commonly known and preferred as Native American Heritage Month.

Now, therefore, we, the Cobb County Board of Commissioners, proclaim November as Native American Heritage Month in Cobb County.

And we encourage all of our citizens to honor this month through programs, ceremonies, and activities that celebrate the history, culture, and achievements of Native Americans.

This the 20th day of November 2025.

And please, if everyone can introduce themselves, that'd be great.

Hi, my name is Megan Dickon, and this is my daughter Elizabeth.

So thank you so much, Commissioners, for recognizing Native American Heritage Month.

We are grateful for this acknowledgement of our community.

This month is a reminder that Native people are not only a part of the past, we are here today, contributing to the well-being, culture, and economy of Cobb County.

Many people are surprised to learn how much Indigenous knowledge shaped this country.

For example, the Hodenoshone Confederacy, one of the world's oldest participatory democracies, also commonly known as the Iroquois, directly influenced the framers of the U.S.

Constitution.

The Great Law of Peace offered ideas about federalism, unity among different nations, checks and balances, and the belief that leaders must serve with a good mind and a good heart.

These principles helped form the foundation of the government we live under today and inspired the founders in their writing of the U.S.

Constitution.

Here in the Southeast, nations such as the Muscogee Creek, Cherokee, and Chickasaw cared for this land for thousands of years.

Yet our history and our ongoing presence often go unseen.

That's why proclamations like this matter.

They help our youth feel pride in who they are.

They help our neighbors understand that Indigenous history is Georgia's history.

And they create space for recognition, respect, and connection.

So thank you again, Commissioners, for honoring Native American Heritage Month this month of November, and for seeing our community.

We look forward to continuing to share our cultures and strengthen our relationships here in Cobb County.

Hello, my name is Joseph Jordan.

I come from the Maharan Nation up in North Carolina, and I'm also from the Snipe clan.

Tanya, come on up here and join us.

This is another one of our members in our community and uh from my tribe.

Uh so I want to introduce her to come up here as well.

Um, so we teach in culture, and we're trying to help our youth give them a place to learn how to do basket work, pottery, uh dancing, and a lot of other stuff.

And uh, you know, it's uh hard when you don't live within side of your community.

So I'm gonna share a little bit of culture with y'all while y'all are here because this will probably be the first time y'all ever had uh a part of it inside of the cop.

So shell, don't cash allow shell, don't shell.

Oh my god, hey, uh oh.

Hi, I'm Wendy, and we are actually from New York, Anadogan Nation, Honda Noshoni in the eel clan.

My name is Alyssa Jambro, and Wendy is my wonderful mother.

Um, I first want to thank her by just being the Hodenishone woman that I know and that I love with my whole heart, and I'd like to thank our family members and ancestors for continuing to teach us our traditions and our history, even if we are not in close proximity with them.

And I'd like to thank everyone at the Metro Atlanta Native American organization for being a very committed community member to the indigenous population in Georgia and in Metro Atlanta as well, and thank everyone today for being able to not only listen to our stories and our backgrounds, but being able to take something with you at the end of the day.

My name is Tanya Jordan, twin a skin ahead.

I am Maheron from North Carolina Snipe clan.

I'm honored to be here today with my fellow uh tribes folks, and so good to see everybody tonight.

Okay, so I'm honored to be here.

All right, we're gonna lie and take a picture and show.

All right, here we go.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Okay.

That now takes us to the public hearing portion of this meeting, which we will cover a number of code amendments.

This portion of our meeting will be led by our community development director, Jessica Gwynn.

Good evening, everyone, Jessica Gwynn, Cobb County Community Development.

This is our second public hearing for the 2025 Code Amendment package.

As you recall, we had our first public hearing uh last week on November 12th, and we also had a work session where the code amendments were presented to the board of commissioners on October 28th.

This evening for the Code Amendment presentation, rather than going through the full presentation as we have twice already.

Uh, we'll just hit the highlights of the things that have changed since the last public hearing.

So tonight I'll only be going through the changes that have been made since the first public hearing, that first draft.

So in chapter two, this is administration, and this piece was brought forward by our purchasing department.

Just a couple of minor changes there.

Actually, no changes there.

So section 2-141 as well as 2-142.

Both of those sections had no changes, so that is exactly as it was for the first public hearing.

In chapter 10, this is the animals chapter.

We had no changes to section 10-51 or 10-67.

There was one change in 10-135.

We've added subsection F.

Each violation of this article shall constitute a separate offense.

So that's the only new language in this amendment.

Chapter 18, this is the building regulations.

We had three sections here that were being amended, the first being 18-28, no changes to that one.

18-301.1 regarding swimming pool contractors.

Given that this code section references earlier on that we do follow the international swimming pool and spa code.

Rather than having a definition of spa in here, we've referred back to that code.

So whatever the definition is in that international code, then is by default our own definition.

So we've added that language as defined by the International Swimming Pool and SPA code.

And then 18-361.

Again, no changes to that section pertaining to blasting.

And chapter 22, this is the cable and video service providers, state franchise holders.

This is a new chapter, and there were no changes from the first public hearing.

Chapter 50.

So I'm only going to speak to one piece of chapter 50.

The rest of chapter 50 isn't part of the water department's amendments, and so Judy Jones will come up and speak to those a little bit later.

So this amendment is just 50-258 enumeration of prohibited noises.

No changes to this language pertaining to fireworks within 200 yards of equine facilities.

Chapter 54, this is the prior fire prevention and protection chapter.

We had several chapter sections that were being amended.

However, most of the changes were pretty minor.

And 54-51 life safety certificate of occupancy requirement.

Just some clarifying language there for community development agency.

As we go down to 54-52 International Fire Code adopted, you see that there's been language added related to at what point or what to do whenever the International Fire Code does not address an issue.

No changes to section 5453, 54, 54.1, or 55.

And 54-56, the definition in number seven has been deleted as it was determined to be unnecessary at this point.

Section 54-60, there was just a some sequencing in the lettering that was corrected, just to clear that up.

No changes to 5492, 93, 94, or 95.

All those are just as they were for the first public hearing.

Section 54-103.

54-121 jurisdiction and appeals.

There that were added in version one.

Both of those are no longer necessary, so those have also been removed.

Chapter 86.

I'm actually going to let Deputy Chief Ben Cohen come up and speak to chapter 86 very briefly.

And this is the offenses and miscellaneous provisions.

No slide.

Good evening, chairwoman, commissioners, county manager.

After careful consideration and speaking with legal and doing a little bit of research, we're we are requesting to pull this so we can formulate a different plan and a different ordinance sometime in the in the coming year.

Thank you.

Thank you, DC.

Okay, chapter 102, solid waste recycling and residential collection.

Again, this is a chapter where we had a number of changes, the number of sections being amended.

There were not a whole lot of significant changes to from the first public hearing draft.

The first change is in section 102-5 definitions, removing the dwelling definition there.

No changes to subsection 9, 10, 11, or 12.

No changes to section 14, 16, 51, or 52.

No changes to 53, 54, or 55 or 56.

Sections 57, 58, 59, and 60 also remain as they were in the first public hearing.

Sections 61, 62, and 64 remain unchanged.

There is a change to section 102-65 required provision of residential elective offer of recycling service to clarify that what acceptable recycle materials are at residential drop-off sites.

No changes to section 67, 69, 70, or 71, or 74, 75, 102, or 70, oh that was a duplicate there.

Section 91, no changes.

Section 92, there was a change here to clarify that recycling job sites are for residential drop-offs only.

No changes to section 96 or 98.

No changes to 99 through 110 or 111.

Section 102-112.

This pertains to the membership of Keep Cobb Beautiful Board, clarified representative composition for the board, including all the municipalities.

No changes to 113.

No changes to 114, 115, 116, or 117, and no changes to 118 or 119.

So those are all your changes for chapter 102.

Chapter 106, street sidewalk public places.

We had two sections for amendment there.

Section 106 10 and 106 11.

Both of those sections remain as they were for the first public hearing with no changes.

Chapter 114.

This is section 114 19, 119.

Again, no changes to this section.

And at that point, we're gonna have Judy Jones come up and talk through the changes that have been made to the amendments proposed by the water department.

Good evening, Chairwoman, Commissioners, and County Manager.

The remainder of chapter 50.

Uh, we had no changes to the sections that are in it 71, 106, 110, 111.

Also no changes to 112, 130, or 143.

Chapter 83, we didn't have any changes to this chapter.

Chapter 110.

Um also no changes to the two sections in this chapter.

Chapter 122, we did have some changes, uh, but no changes in 122, 57, 84, or 89.

In section 122, 126, wastewater list stations.

Um, in B4, we did add that private list stations serving more than one multifamily residential property may be considered that for clarification.

The water system considers multifamily residential as commercial as they're typically build commercial for water and sewer, but we recognize that doesn't mean that to everyone, so we wanted to make sure that that was understood in this.

In B4A, we added that the viable entity responsible for the private list station cannot be a homeowner's association.

In B4H, we added that provides multifamily residential properties with private lift stations shall be properties with rental dwelling units, example apartments, rather than fee simple dwelling units with individual ownership like a like condominiums.

And in number five, we changed residential property to single family residential property.

There was no change to 12230.

I mean, sorry, 122-130, no change to 153, 152, uh, no change, sorry, 152 in 122, 188 interceptors.

Um we corrected a typo changing walk stations to work stations.

We added a definition for remodeling, and in C4B and C5BI, we added increasing day in or hours of operation as something that could cause capacity of interceptors to be increased.

In the stormwater management uh article three uh chapter uh 122301.

We added a definition for bond resolution, and we revised the definition of stormwater service fees in section 122302.

In C findings 12, we added in accordance with this article.

In 122, 303, we added within the city with sorry within the county water system in accordance with this article in the first sentence.

In 122, 304 B1, we provided further specificity on the maintenance of stormwater infrastructure on residential property.

In 122, 305, we changed governing county water or stormwater system bond resolution to just governing bond resolution.

There were no changes to 122 311, 312 or 313.

And there are no changes to three one.

Sorry, one twenty-two three fourteen, one twenty-two, three fifteen.

We added that customers in addition to property owners can apply for a fee credit.

And in one twenty-two-three sixteen in appeals, we change the time an applicant has to appeal the director's decision to the board of commissioners from 15 days to 30 days.

And have it for consideration of the amendments.

Thank you.

What we will do is have a public hearing open up for members of the public to provide feedback for any of the code amendments.

And for those of you who are not familiar with our process, please hope in stating your name prior to your remarks, and note that there is a timer up on the podium for you to keep track of your three minutes.

Okay.

I am Sabrina Maul.

I am an East Cobb.

I moved here in 1983, so I've been a long resident of this county.

So I was kind of looked disappointed to see that it's being brought back again.

The stormwater problem is not did not appear out of nowhere.

When they build a subdivision, they didn't they did it without proper uh stormwater control, inadequate uh long-term design consideration and uh and their shortcuts and failure uh created the the come the problem, the flooding, the infrastructure uh straining, and the erosion problems.

And you know, our county has been faced with this struggle for quite some time, and so it is the developer and not the taxpayer, you know, who causes this problem.

So the financial burden to fix it, you know, should be placed upon the developer and not on the taxpayer.

So it is quite unfair for the county to try to impose the new ring tax on homeowners, especially those homeowners who had not been affected by the stormwater issue or you know did not even near live near all those problems.

So the the BOC should pursue accountability towards those who cause the problem and those the developer.

And uh so I think it's very unfair for the county try to impose four dollars and seventy-five cents, you know, to the residents that had nothing to do with it.

And you say it's not a tax, but everybody has to pay for it.

And I don't know what you what else you call that.

So it is very unfair.

I think the responsibility of fixing it and to reconstruction or whatever should be placed back on the developer, and you know who developed those subdivisions, and they are should care, you know, take all the full responsibility of fixing a problem rather than for us taxpayers who had nothing to do with this problem.

Thank you.

Sir, you may begin.

Madam Chairwoman, Commissioners, my name is Richard Grome.

I am here representing East Cobb Civic Association.

ECCA submitted its recommendations in writing to the BOC on stormwater management as a utility.

ECCA has some major concerns about how the creation of this stormwater utility solves any of Cobb County's current and future stormwater problems.

What we see is the county asking for additional money for county stormwater infrastructure after years of failing to maintain the system.

The transferring of water system funds, which included monies for stormwater over many years, has added to this problem, and by how much we will never know.

Nor does this proposed code prevent this from happening again, allowing the pledging of stormwater revenue streams for bonds for the water system.

Where is the master plan for controlling stormwater runoff and mitigating flooding in Cobb County, not just for those entities that have detention ponds or pipes maintained by Cobb County today?

Now the county is going to make private individuals who may have inherited these problems pay.

Declaring privately owned stormwater facilities as a nuisance can and will lead to legal actions against many Cobb County citizens and legal costs for the county.

In addition, HOAs are to be assessed as a business.

This is after, in many cases, HOAs spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on dredging lakes that are collecting sedimentation from upstream.

Where is the fairness in this?

Declaring improperly maintained private private stormwater facilities a nuisance needs to be reconsidered.

Although the county says it cannot legally help maintain stormwater infrastructure on private property, stormwater management is now proposing to spend county money to give away riprap, along with extending some piping to private residents that need it.

In addition, it is supposed proposed that funds be transferred to the DOT for work they currently do in the right-of-way and is in their budget.

It is now 18 months since these code amendments were held the first time.

A lot of the same issues remain unaddressed, and new ones have been added.

ECCA recommends holding section fifty eighty-three one ten one twenty-two of the code, saddling current and at future homeowners with major stormwater expenses while only concentrating on Cobb County public infrastructure with no master plan for public private coordination other than punishment if you cannot maintain your private infrastructure, as well as giving away stormwater funds to certain groups is not the answer.

Thank you.

As a courtesy, I'm informing you that government servants are in male administration and can be held individually liable for unofficial acts.

Mail administration, bad management of public affairs, vicious or defective conduct in administration, or the performance of official duties, particularly of executive and ministerial duties prescribed by law as male administration of a king or chief magistrate.

That's from Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary.

Trump versus United States, 603 U.S.

593.

There is uh no immunity for artificial acts.

Please take notice.

Corporations are in commerce and may be taxed and pay fees.

The people are not.

Where the Constitution is the expressly granted authority to tax a charge fees against the people's inherent rights.

Georgia State Constitution, Article 9, Section 4, Text of Paragraph 1, power of taxation, B1.

County governing authorities may be authorized by local law to levy and collect business and occupational license taxes and fees, only in the unincorporated areas of the counties.

Back to a law, where there's no authority for establishing a rule, there's no necessity of obeying it.

Back to a law, a repugnant act cannot be brought into being.

It cannot be made effectual.

Back to a law, the government cannot load a citizen with a position against his will or consent.

Final notice.

To the gentleman who's on, are you waiting in line?

There's a lot of us waiting in line.

Okay, I just saw you crouched there and I saw you walk up, so I don't know if you intended to be the next speaker.

Okay, just want to make sure you're gonna take anywhere near you're fine if you do you have three minutes though, madam chair and commissioners.

This is actually my first time um attending one of these meetings, and I came tonight.

I'm sorry, that's right.

My name is Lynn Marmelstein.

I live in East Cobb, and I I really came because I want to I want to understand this.

I want to I want to just tell you about what happened to me.

Um I have a subdivision, and in the back of my subdivision where we live, there was at the end of the road, a stormwater drain was never put in, and the county signed off on that development.

Okay, so all the water from that street comes rushing into four or five of our homes, backyards.

I called stormwater management, okay.

I called them many years ago.

I told them about this problem, and they said to me, nothing we can do about it.

Okay.

It cost me 17,000 dollars to put a dry bed in the back of my property.

So for you to come now to tell me that I'm gonna pay a tax, okay, when nobody was there to help me.

I have to tell you it it aggravates me beyond what I can say right here, and I feel just I feel I feel like we don't matter, okay.

In my opinion, whoever built that subdivision, whoever it was that signed off on that, they should never have signed off on it.

They should have done their job correctly, because we have all, I mean, when I talk about water in the basement, okay, not once, not twice, three times.

Okay, and I'm not even talking about those repairs.

All right, guys.

I mean, really, they should take responsibility for what those developers are at fault.

I realize, and I realize many of them are no longer to be found.

But why should we?

Why should we be wrestled with this?

That was a lot of money.

That was money out of my savings, okay?

That I had to take and use so that I could save my land so that I wouldn't end up going into my house anymore.

That's all I want to say.

Madam Chairman, commissioners, officers, y'all know me.

I'm Dr.

John Morgan, retired educator and dean, and I'm going to talk on a different topic.

I'm Cobb resident for the past 40 plus years, a homeless, unhoused volunteer, about half the time.

And I've interacted, connected with most of y'all enough to realize that we have the finest leadership bond rating, and so forth here.

Plus law enforcement, charities, behavioral health, wellness clinics, hospitals, EV, bar none in the entire state, and I'm really proud.

Thank you.

Doing much in times of need, like shifting millions around to feed the hungry, and thank you for that.

And essentially, we're heading in the right direction on this, and I think most issues.

And I'm I'm glad to say that Section 86 was pulled, but under further consideration, I'd like to address that because I was a bit concerned in the wording, and it'll be dealt with now on, you know, unhoused sleeping, residing, storing personal property in any county owned stream, streets, public parks, or any other public property without written permission.

I can understand where that's headed, but the problem is where else can they stay?

That's the big problem.

There's no place, everything is full.

And I I just concern myself, I'm concerned about setting up a basis for criminalizing these folks for for being and in non-compliance, of course.

About 90% of these folks I've found prefer to be like you and me, tax-paying citizens, owning homes with jobs and all.

They don't want to be there.

Or you say, well, move them out of sight.

And that happens.

That is happening most of the time.

But where do they go mostly on foot?

Well, I'm sure we could check with our adjacent counties, Douglas, Fulton, Cherokee Palm, Paulading, and so forth, who love us for shoving our problems into their jurisdictions, and that's really what happens.

Well, I really feel that we are capable of much better than this, and I've sent y'all a viable answer for this sudden humanitarian crisis.

It's instant prefab in put in place in a day or two, a supplemental stop gap with wraparound services until we can figure out our UDC.

Sorry, you're more accessive.

Your three minutes are up, sorry.

No, sir, I'm sorry.

Let's just get it.

Thank you.

Sir, thank you, please.

This asset you want at the time.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Becky Smith, and I apologize for not attending the meeting last week, but I was having surgery.

And frankly, I'd rather be at home recovering right now instead of standing here speaking about stormwater again.

As a refresher, I was one of the homes badly hit by the September 2021 flood, a five-foot diameter pipe, 200 feet long, is buried under my backyard.

It spans three properties with my home in the middle, and there's no access to it for my property.

The flash flood destroyed the first 40 feet of that culvert and washed away all of the dirt, keeping it buried.

Stormwater management laughed at me when I brought it to their attention, stating that the platform I home indicates an easement, but doesn't say pipe.

They refuse to lift a finger to help me hiding behind a fake policy.

Only after the flood, and because of people like me, do you not want to make this an official policy?

My neighbors and I paid 96,000 to replace the broken culvert pipe, and I now have a new sinkhole in my backyard where the replacement pipe was installed.

It'll be another $20,000 to fix that.

It never ends.

I cannot stress that flood insurance does not cover this.

This is all out of pocket.

And trying to find a qualified person who can do all these repairs is next to impossible.

And every company that came out to give us quotes all said the same thing.

Why isn't the county taking care of this?

And that is the million dollar question.

Why?

Why does Cobb County think it's okay to make homeowners responsible for these repairs?

Why do you think anyone would want to continue to live in this county if they are forced to take ownership of these repairs?

Why would anyone want to move here?

I agree something needs to be done.

And you've had four years to go out and survey all of the unmarked culverts and chose not to.

And instead of doing what is right, you're choosing to do what is politically convenient, and homeowners are left with the choice between making six figure repairs or getting a lien on their property.

And I'm just not willing to accept that.

And again, I ask you to table this code amendment until you have a real solution that actually addresses this older infrastructure and protects your constituents from further ruin.

Thank you.

But well run is the key component of that belief.

A government that levies taxes without delivering public services.

And just ask for those in the audience not to interrupt our speakers.

It's not appropriate when they have the microphone, you are to honor them and allow them to speak without hearing you.

If you can't do that, you could step outside.

Sorry, sir.

You may continue.

We stop the clock.

Thank you.

Yes.

A government that levies taxes without delivering public services in return is simply extorting its constituents.

This code amendment is intended to raise the funds needed to repair the current broken stormwater infrastructure.

Funds that this commission had already appropriated, but then reallocated to the general fund for other projects.

What assurances do we have that they won't do that again?

But the real problem with this code amendment is that it fails to address the core problem here that Cobb County has woefully incomplete records of its stormwater infrastructure and refuses to even consider making repairs to any infrastructure not found in its spotty records.

Do you know what $96,000 buys you?

A shady contractor who does substandard work and then bails on the last 10% of the job.

If uh if Cobb County had hired him, I don't think he would do that to them.

But he could do it to me.

So now, four years later, another sinkhole is forming where the creek water leaks out of the joint in the new pipe and washes away the soil beneath it.

That's costing us another $20,000 to fix.

And it will likely need to be patched every five years or so in perpetuity.

So, if a five dollar tax would get Cobb County to conduct a detailed survey of their stormwater infrastructure and begin to take ownership of it, I would be its biggest cheerleader.

I would pay $10 a month and be thankful that no homeowner will ever again experience what my wife and I did.

But I have no faith that Cobb County will ever take accountability for this and do the right thing.

My wife and I are listing our house as soon as these repairs are complete, and we are leaving Cobb County forever.

Thank you.

Commissioners, County Manager.

I speak today to express my firm.

I'm sorry, Richard Enzinger.

Richard Inzinger, thank you.

I speak today to express my firm opposition to the proposed stormwater fee.

An unnecessary rain tax disguised as a solution.

This amendment is not a plan.

It is a cost shifting scheme.

It pushes responsibilities onto residents, churches, schools, neighborhoods, while the county increases revenues and avoids accountability.

It offers no direct benefit to stormwater affected properties.

On the county developed retention and detention ponds built by the county itself, there were left without maintenance repairs or dredging.

The county walks away, and the citizens are left holding the bag.

Stormwater maintenance is the county's responsibility.

Yet instead of fulfilling that duty, you want to collect additional fees and shift the burden onto private property owners.

Let's be clear.

Cobb already transfers 5% of water system revenue into the general fund.

That's about 20 to 25 million dollars in fiscal year 2025.

By law, you can transfer up to 10%.

That's 40 to 50 million.

The money exists, the resources exist.

What's missing is accountability.

This proposal would force citizens to shoulder tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands in unexpected repairs or face liens against their homes.

We said no to this once before.

Tonight we say it again.

No additional stormwater tax.

Because of that, the county has wrongly declared some pipes private, even when the courthouse documents show the county actually took ownership.

That burden of proof should never fall on the citizens.

This rain tax has no plan, no inventory, and no public process.

It is not ready for prime time.

It's a backroom money grab that shifts massive cost onto residents, churches, and schools, while the county still cannot tell us what infrastructure it owns or what condition it's in.

And here's the truth.

The law requires that the county to have a comprehensive stormwater plan, a complete inventory, and a long-term capital plan before proposing any fee.

Note that none of that exists.

Its own MPDES filings show gaps and possible non-compliance.

Until the county does the work the law demands, this proposal is reckless and irresponsible.

And now it comes down to one person.

Commissioner Eric Allen.

He must choose whether to stand with the citizens of Cobb County or to stand with Chair Cupid and let this become known as the Eric Allen Rain Tax.

The Eric Allen rain tax.

That's what it will be known as.

If you vote for this, this is not ready.

Chair, this will be known as the Eric Allen rain tax.

That's what it will be known as.

And Chair, we the citizens are not going to forget that Eric Allen voted for this.

We won't.

I promise you that.

So it's time to decide whether you're going to protect the citizens of Cobb County from this horrible plan.

A plan that doesn't protect the citizens of Cobb County.

A plan that's nothing more than a money grab.

Are you going to stand with something that's being pushed on us rammed down our throats, whether we want it or not?

I hope you vote no, Mr.

Allen.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Mary Madeline Wilson.

I had not planned to speak tonight.

I really came just to hear about the issue.

But after people spoke, I remembered a memory that I would like to relate that applies to this directly.

In 1990, I met a lot of banker at Cobb Federal, which of course doesn't exist anymore.

She was telling me a story about what she was suffering as a result of Cobb County's failure to manage the developer of an apartment complex that was granted on Cunningham Road next to their property, next to her home.

In a flood, the pipe which had been broken by the developer, allowed rainwater to come on their property and knock their carport down.

Her husband ended up having a heart attack.

The stress of all that was just so much for them to bear.

She would leave work whenever it rained and go home to Cunningham from Cobb Federal to Cunningham Road to climb into the storm drain to pull limbs and debris that would get caught on the broken pipe that was never repaired so that it would not flood their property, and her husband could live.

Sadly, on one of the times that it rained, she ran home to pull the debris out of that storm drain on her property, and her jacket got caught on the broken pipe, and she drowned.

Whoever oversees the development and knew that that pipe had broken and did not make them go in and take it out and put in a new pipe.

I mean, they should have been held liable.

There was something in the Mary had a daily journal about it, but nobody was held to account.

But that was a beautiful young lady, a beautiful banker that I met in 1990.

She can't tell the story today, so I wanted to tell it for her.

Thank you.

Okay.

My name is James Rosick.

Um I recommend you table this for a while.

Punt.

A punt's bad, but a fumble's worse, and that's what's coming.

I'm the one that sent you the email this afternoon.

I'm sorry it was late, but there's a lot of information there, I think that you need to consider.

First off, the video, Madam Chairwoman, that you that you made yesterday laid the blame on 7,000 properties that are served by Marietta Water.

That is not a justification for a stormwater utility.

You're going to have to do better than that.

And this 400, I mean sorry, this 400, this $4.75 residential fee.

That's entirely arbitrary.

What did you come up with this number?

You pulled it out of thin air.

Where's your data?

Where's your analysis?

I'm asking you that because we don't have an inventory.

We don't, and that shows up in the NPDS permit.

I'm going to call Georgia EPD and ask them to re-review the permit.

I hope they come down on us hard.

I really do.

We're not in full compliance with it.

I was a critic of our utilities director, and I'm not now anymore.

I know what's going on.

You're giving her too much work to do.

She can't do it.

We need to bring in someone that understands utilities.

It's her job to keep us all alive by making sure we have clean water and an adequate supply.

For a stormwater program to be accessible, we're going to have to bring someone else in.

I want to I want to bring it to your attention, Cobb County Code Section 50104, watershed management plan, which does not exist.

You said in your video there's a comprehensive water's comprehensive stormwater plan.

No, there is not.

It does not exist.

You're the one putting misinformation out there, madam.

Right.

Stop.

The manager shall submit for review and approval by resolution of the board, commissioners, a plan for a comprehensive stormwater program to address the management of stormwater quality and quantity.

Again, that does not exist.

The watershed plan shall identify potential sites for regional stormwater management and or flood control facilities during the ensuing 15-year capital improvements plan.

We don't have one.

If we got one, let's see it.

And again, um I want to know more about this corrective actions letter that was issued by Georgia EPD in January 2024.

And in one point in there, it said the process of assigning jurisdiction to the current inventory is a difficult task and anticipated six several years.

Have you made any progress on this?

It's a really lousy excuse.

That's embarrassing to say something like that to Georgia EPD.

This is a federal program.

Do you really want the state to come down on us?

Maybe even the EPA.

Do your homework and come back when we're ready.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Debbie Fisher, East Cobb.

This seems kind of like a do-over.

For years, my neighborhood petitioned the Cobb Commissioners to actually create a stormwater utility.

And why is that?

The neighborhood I live in stores 2300 acres worth of runoff coming from Sweat Mountain all the way down to Loch Highland.

In the last 14 years, Lock Highland has spent 1.6 million dollars dredging our lakes.

If we lived a mile down the road towards Highway 92, Roswell, the city of Roswell, would have assisted us with 50% of that dredging cost through their responsible stormwater utility.

Responsible, putting liens on people's homes, telling homeowners they have to pay for their own infrastructure.

There's very few jobs that the county actually is supposed to do.

One power you're given is taxation.

But for that taxation, we as the taxpayers are supposed to get something back for it, not to pay you more.

And I can just say that I used to be in support of a stormwater utility to assist private property owners like all these people that have spoken tonight.

Some of their stories are heartbreaking.

They're heartbreaking.

And I have to say, the last time around, two years ago, when you um Madam Chair and Judy went around doing town hall meetings, you haven't changed the story.

We still don't have the plan.

We still don't have the number of miles of corrugated piping, of sewer pipes, of water pipes that are in our inventory.

You don't even know what kind of money you need.

You're just gonna charge us and then apply it.

That isn't the way it's supposed to work.

That absolutely, this is not ready for prime.

And I also ask you to table this until Cobb County can be responsible.

And I'm happy to assist you.

Believe it or not, I actually know quite a bit about stormwater.

And I can show you what a responsible stormwater utility is, and I ask you to table it.

Sorry, your time's gone.

Good evening, Denny Wilson.

Um, I think it was Ronald Reagan who said that the nine most terrifying words in the English language was I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Um do not disagree that we have a crumbling stormwater infrastructure and the need to address it.

In particular, I think what you guys need to do is you need to map the entire system first, then you need to identify the repair priorities and estimated cost, and that way you can develop a plan for future development and system improvements.

Then you put a long-range plan in place and figure out the funding that would justify the fee structure.

Raising money before you know what the actual cost would be is not fiscally responsible.

Um part of the need to map and draft this existing system first is to make sure that every property owner that has stormwater infrastructure on their land that they are financially responsible for if it fails, should already know this.

Right now, people have failed in infrastructure on their properties that they don't even know they're responsible for.

And you should also do uh it with all future buyers, they should know this as well.

Uh you can probably make a prop make that a property list and requirement.

Uh HOA should also know what their future and current liabilities pertaining to stormwater will be.

Um, I spent a lot of time on this this week, and I have to give a shout out to Judy Jones, the water director, because she answered every email I sent her, she answered every phone call I made to her because I'm trying to figure out how why are we back here, and we haven't done any research to find out how much money that's actually needed.

You guys went from $4 and 25 cent scale to $12 and something.

Now you're back at 475.

So how do we know that that 475 in the next year with it being a fee because you can raise it when you get ready?

How do we know that that 475 next year won't turn out to be 850?

And the next year in the next year.

And again, as many people here have said, give us give us the layout, give us the plans.

You know, uh table it tonight and then go do the plan and come back.

I mean, make people believe you, make them believe in you.

And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a stormwater fee.

What I'm saying is we should be told what that fee will incur.

And right now we just don't know.

I mean, we don't know, and you haven't given us any documents.

Hi there.

I'm gonna speak on a different subject, if that's okay.

Um, my name is Lisa Powell Huberty, and I'm a resident of Marietta in District 3.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening and would like to thank the board and Director Hammond for the proposed changes to Section 10135.

Unfortunately, over the past few years, government operated shelters across the state, including Cobb County, have experienced dramatic increase in shelter intakes, and this has caught hard hardships on animal services for an extended period of time without relief.

Director Hammond and his staff have worked tirelessly to manage this crisis.

And we have sent you guys a presentation back in May with a lot of data and detail on this.

Um, as recognized by our state legislators and the board, transient outdoor pet sales, sales that take place in parking lots or roadsides, for example, are a considerable factor in this problem due to a lack of regulation or oversight.

The passage of the state law, which took effect in July, along with the passage of ordinances in 16 localities to date and counting, provides local jurisdictions with the tools and means to deal with these illegal pet sales.

The seven Georgia County presidents are Douglas, Walton, DeCav, Fulton Hall, Athens Clark, and Forsyth, and the nine Georgia City presidents are Douglasville, Chambley, Doraville, Brookhaven, Dunwoody, Johns Creek, Roswell, Gainesville, and Royston.

I just want to thank you for your time and your dedication to our county.

Um, and please vote yes on these important code changes.

And my fellow constituent Ann Lewis and her lovely daughters would also like to share their thoughts on this matter.

Thank you so much.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Ann Lewis, and I live in Kennesaw.

Um, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening and would certainly like to thank the board and Direc Hammond for the proposed code changes to Section 10135.

Um, I would like to follow up uh on Lisa's comments and talk about why the new state law uh was passed.

Uh, the new state law protects consumers from buying sick genetically defective or misrepresented animals.

It protects animals by deterring illicit breeders who raise animals in neglectful environments.

It protects legal breeders who follow responsible practices, it helps reduce the economic burden on taxpayers for animal control services and overcrowded shelters.

Um, and it prevents illicit pet sellers for simply crossing jurisdictional lines to evade local laws.

Uh, and lastly, it alleviates the need to determine violations of business and breeder licensing laws in the field.

It's advantageous for local governments to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the same illegal conduct in accordance with the new state law for several reasons.

It expands enforcement options for local jurisdictions.

Law enforcement will then have the discretion to either warn or cite under local code or arrest under state level charges.

In addition, non-POST certified government employees, for example, animal control and code enforcement officers will then be authorized to initiate charges under the local code.

So with that, I would like to thank you for all of you all you do for Cobb County, and please vote yes on these important code changes to Section 10135.

And with that, my two daughters, Hadley and Ellie Lewis, just would like to say a few words if that's okay.

So I'm going to move the microphone down.

They're not as tall as me.

Come on.

Come on, Ellie.

Okay, exactly.

Hi, can you tell me your name?

Hi, my name is Ellie Lewis, and I'm nine years old, and I live in Kennesaw, Georgia.

And I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak today and for considering the important code changes to Section 10-135.

I have seen first hand puppies being sold out of a chunk of a car in a busy shopping center parking lot.

And I would love to see the county I live in, Cobb County, support these important changes to protect animals and people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Hadley Lewis, Ellie's twin sister, and I'm also nine years old.

And I live in Kennesaw, Georgia.

I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak today and for considering the important code changes to Section 10-135.

World Kindness Day is this month, and its purpose is to promote kindness and compassion.

People celebrate this day by performing good deeds, and my good deed is being here and asking you to kindly pass these important code changes to protect animals and people.

Thank you.

Great job, Mom.

That's a that's a hard one to follow.

So my name is uh Clay Fairno.

I live um at 4600 Lake Drive in Ackworth.

Um I'm gonna talk a little bit about lift stations, and good evening, Chairwoman and Commissioners.

I'm here to express my uh full support for the subject changes to the Cobb County Code Section 122 through 126 of the wastewater lift station.

I live in the northwest corridor of Cobb County near Lake Alatoona.

These subject changes uh to the code align perfectly with the Cobb County policy document, Northwest Land and Vulnerability Analysis that took place in 2014.

This policy document was developed to protect Lake Alatoona and the surrounding watershed while guiding development.

In the document summary, it states it's the importance of protecting Lake Alatoona.

It also establishes specific area policy guidance for the Northwest Corridor.

The proposed code amendment does not prevent commercial property owners from utilizing lift stations in the corridor as long as they can flow by gravity.

One of the specific areas, Area 5 of that document describes an environmental environmentally sensitive area next to Lake Alatuna.

In 2018, this area was planned for high density development.

For this development to take place, it required large privately owned lift stations placed along the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineer property, adjoining Lake Alatoona.

Fortunately, Cobb County denied those two private lift stations, and the high density development was put on hold.

What I'm against are the lift stations being put in a uh environmentally sensitive area.

However, pressure is being applied once again to uh move this high density development forward with the LIFT stations.

The new code language will strengthen the intent of protecting the sensitive environmental watershed in Lake Alatuna in the Northwest Quarter.

In 2014, the Cobb Board of Commissioners voted and approved the Northwest Cobb Vulnerability Analysis Policy document supporting the county's 2030 plan.

Chairwoman Cupid and Commissioner Burrell were both uh two of the commissioners that voted on the on the board to approve the the server.

I'm sorry, your your time is up.

Hi, Commissioners, I'm Alicia Adams, and uh I recall back in 2023.

Commissioner Cupid, you gave an absolutely spectacular state of the county address to the Chamber of Commerce.

You painted a picture of Cobb County that made it feel like we rivaled the Garden of Eden, and you said that we had not raised our property tax rates in years.

But with a little sleight of hands, you didn't tell anyone.

Oh, but we've gone up on the um unrealized capital gains every year for what, six, seven years, and then the water rates are the lowest in the Atlanta area, but no mention that we were in the process uh a very ferocious um attempt to implement water stormwater fees that was not mentioned in the state of the county address.

But when I spoke with uh Judy Jones, we had a great conversation, as a matter of fact, um, at one of the meetings.

She expressed how dire the situation was, and that not only did we need to implement the stormwater increase, we also needed to increase our water rates.

So that was only like two months after the state of the county address.

So is that again another magic act, another trick to ask for more money?

You've stated that our infrastructure's dire, and uh the people of Cobb County let you know we don't want that.

We want you to fix it.

It's part of our water rate.

So, what's been done since then?

2023.

You've been on the council, you've been on the commissioners for almost half of the years that there's been any kind of diversion.

You've been at the helm now for five years.

What have we done to address this?

Money is not the issue, it's lack of planning.

It's a fiduciary responsibility that you have to take care of our water treatment, and it's not being done.

In five years of leadership, a fiduciary responsibility is being ignored.

And you, as the board of commissioners, what do you oversee?

You oversee the developers, the developments, ensuring that all of the coding is appropriate.

So, why should the homeowners be left holding the cat holding the bag?

I'm gonna ask you to table this until we come up with a plausible solution, other than taking more money out of our pockets.

We need real solutions that should have been implemented by the time your administration started.

You've got three years.

Let's see what you can do without raising our taxes.

We're already being we're already in parallel.

Hello, my name is Kathy Slough.

I'm a homeowner for 21 years in Marietta in Cobb County.

I think that wonderful family left, but I am so glad I came here because that is how I was raised to share our concerns, and I applaud that family.

Um I am against the proposed rain tax, stormwater tax, whatever you want to call it.

I was gonna read something, but I'll just share.

I am in a HOA, and I got to call at midnight because I have been there for a while, and the water was up past the knees in several of our condos that are in a floodplain along a creek that should have never been risen because it was never cleaned out in an evolved pipe.

That's nothing compared to what some of these people have experienced.

Somebody lost a car.

Now the people that like were knocking on doors for mature people like us making sure we were all safe every time it rains.

I get a call, which is fine because we're here to help each other.

Okay, we already the stormwater is already part of the water department, so we already pay them.

Plus, that four percent water transfer goes into the general fund.

There's no plan, okay.

People have horrendous stories.

We don't need this now.

I asked you to vote no to table this, and I sent an email here a couple days ago.

Three out of five of you all responded, and I'm watching what you're doing, Eric, because I'm in your district.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Tom Foster.

I live at 4480 Old Grogan Road, Eckworth, bordering Lake Alatoona, our drinking water reservoir.

I am a degree mechanical engineer, and I've worked with Cobb County technicians that maintain lift stations in the county for over 40 years.

I have also worked in the water and wastewater treatment industry for over 60 years.

Lift stations fail on a regular basis.

A lot of the failures are not reported because when they fail, and sewage spills are involved, there's fines that are imposed by the EPA.

They fail on a regular basis because most people think their toilet is a trash can.

And they have no problem flushing diapers, wipes, sanitary napkins, cigarette buds, oils, grease, construction debris, etc.

When that trash ends up at a lift station, it causes the pumps to fail and causes the lift station to fail.

Lift stations are unmanned.

There's no personnel permanently on board at lift stations.

So when failures occur, the alarms are communicated through what's called a SCADA system.

And technicians are deployed to take care of the failure.

Sometimes that can take hours.

And depending on the degree of repair needed, it can take days.

Cobb County stopped allowing new lift station years ago because they no longer have your time's up.

Sir, I'm sorry your time is up, sir, but thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening.

I'm Jennifer Ragsdale.

And I've lived in Cobb County for 57 years.

38 of those years adjoining Lake Altoona.

And I'm here tonight to say that I'm opposed to lift stations.

We live in an environmentally sensitive area, and the protection that we support was described in the Northwest Land Vulnerability Analysis adopted in the summer of 2014.

That was after three public meetings.

And it was approved as was mentioned earlier unanimously by the board.

Two of y'all voted for that.

It would be a severe blow to the county, I feel like, to overturn long-standing county policies that protect the Lake Altina area because that's where our drinking water comes from.

I don't want lift stations failing in pouring sewage into our lake.

I consider a lift station a problem anywhere in the county, but I'm particularly opposed to them around Lake Altoon.

There seems to be an abundance of information, as Tom just mentioned regarding lift station failures.

We can't afford to have these stations failing and polluting the drinking water.

If you allow the stations anywhere in the county, it's going to set a precedent.

And once the precedent's been set, we can't keep them away from the lake.

So please, please vote to protect our drinking water.

It may come at the price of a little bit less development, but our drinking water should be the most important thing.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening.

I had originally drafted remarks, and that feels very formal because I know this has been an ongoing conversation with the commission for for some time as we've been working through these code amendments.

So I thought I would just speak from a little bit of personal experience as someone who lives in the community and watching watching the community grow.

But someone that I do care very deeply about, my grandmother, who is 84.

She lives at the bottom, bottom bottom of a hill in a little neighborhood called Hidden Hollow in East Cobb.

She is the recipient of all stormwater for her neighborhood.

She catches every last drop that hits Hidden Hollow and Robinson Road and flows downward.

And like many of the stories you've heard tonight, she has incurred significant financial cost tied to regularly putting in new personal infrastructure into her property to address that stormwater need.

Part of the reason that East Cobb and Cobb County as a whole are dealing with these really hard stories of stormwater is because we have not followed the vast majority of counties in this region and vast majority of cities in this region in putting funding mechanisms in place to service those.

Most of the counties in the metro started putting in stormwater utilities almost 20 years ago, and Cobb has had this conversation since the Sam Olin chairship days.

Continue to move forward as we can move into a new water directorship and continue to work on these on a case-by-case basis that both recognizes when there is an environmentally sensitive area that you may not want to approve one, but also recognizes when there are important projects that are meaningful for our communities that do require such an investment and do require such an approval.

So with that, I appreciate the time, the hard work, the the county staff for all of their deliberations and appreciate y'all's service.

Thank you.

I live in the subdivision that that young couple came up a little while ago and said they spent $96,000.

I live probably two blocks behind them.

In September of 21, 2021, I got 22 inches of water in my house.

My house is on a slab.

And imagine, if you will, uh 11 30 at night, seeing a little water coming under your doors, and 15 minutes later it's 10, 15 inches and then 20 inches.

I had a 35-inch water line, 360 degrees around my house.

I don't, I can't give you, I can't tell you how to fix it.

I don't know what the problem is.

It's gotta be a water management problem, and I can't begin to tell you how to solve it, but we've got really smart people in this county.

We've got smart people everywhere, and we should be able to fix this.

And as the pastor said when he started, you know, think of the welfare of the citizens of the county, and that's what I would like you to think about is the welfare of the citizens of this county.

Look at us like the Atlanta Braves, the citizens, because when the Atlanta Braves decided to build a stadium, we went all out, and we made them comfortable, and we made them secure a marvelous structure that doesn't leak, because there was really smart people that put that together.

And I remember before they broke land, there was a lake there.

And when they said they were gonna build a stadium on that part, I thought, oh my god, were they nuts?

Anyway, uh I appreciate your work that you do, but we've got to solve this and and and for the welfare of our citizens because there's a lot of angry people, and uh so let's let's solve it.

And if we have to have outside people, but there's some really smart people that can help us do this.

My my um uh to reconstruct my house was a hundred thousand dollars.

Oh my god.

That's not including the two cars that I lost.

One was in my driveway, then the water was so hard and fast it moved my car, and I had another car in my garage.

So I had a hundred thousand dollars damage, plus uh my cars were ruined, which my insurance my my flood insurance didn't cover that.

And then my landscape is is pitiful.

I mean, it just it was it was a mess.

So thank you for your attention.

Hello, um, my name is Virginia Choad.

I'm at the East Cobb.

Um Madam Chair Cupid.

Um I love these public hearings a week before major holidays.

Not that is your favorite strategy for public hearings.

We need a list.

Number one, what we need is a list of where the money is going for stormwater management.

Number two, what is your plan?

Here it is.

Your plan is to push the responsibility for stormwater repairs to the individual homeowners, schools, and churches.

Homeowners, schools, and churches have no way of knowing if a stormwater pipe issue is brewing under their homes, schools, or churches.

Where's your plan?

You have none.

Please vote no.

My name is Dave Morgan.

And I am an unhoused resident of this county.

I come before you represent the hundreds of Cobb County citizens who are being ignored and who have had no voice at this table.

I understand that my camp was discussed at your last meeting.

I want to acknowledge that the concerns raised, trash, sanitation, and fire safety are valid concerns and impact the quality of life for all residents, both housed and unhoused.

But the reason these problems exist is not lack of caring.

It is a critical lack of resources and safe designated place to exist in this county, challenging the stereotype.

First, I must challenge the dangerous stereotype that allows this crisis to continue.

We are often dismissed as either criminals or mentally ill people who refuse help.

This is a convenient lie that allows you to avoid uh solving the real systemic issue.

The vast majority of housed people in Cobb County are not career criminals.

We are working people who suffered a medical crisis, families who got caught in the eviction cycle of people who uh of fixed income who cannot afford the rent.

When the average rent for one bedroom apartment here in Marietta is over 1200 to 1500 per month, the issue is not personal failure.

It is a catastrophic housing crisis that Cobb County has failed to address.

I demand for immediate action.

I'm here to show that we are reasonable people who want to be part of the solution.

I demand three immediate, humane and low cost resources that the county must provide today to address the public health concerns you have raised.

Secure waste disposal.

We need dedicated, secure, and regularly serviced waste disposal bins placed near sites where we can not be held responsible for littering if we are not provided basic tools to keep the area clean.

Portable sanitation.

We need the county to provide service and small, a small number of portables uh sanitation units, porta potties, near the encampment sites.

No person wants to use the bathroom in public, but you have left us no other option.

This is a fundamental public health issue and measure.

Fire safety protocol.

We need county staff to meet with us immediately to establish safe warming and cooking protocol using controlled propane units or community stoves without legal and safe alternatives.

People must resort to dangerous methods.

This prevents catastrophic risk to the entire area.

Commissioners, there these are not long-term solutions.

They are temporary necessities of matter of basic human dignity.

You cannot continue to spend taxpayer dollars on ineffective enforcement and cleanups while refusing to spend it on dignity and public health.

You cannot simultaneously discuss punishing people for existing while they denying them the tools to survive with dignity.

Until you act on the true solution, permanent supportive housing and adequate resources through the Cobb Homeless Alliance.

I demand that you fund these basic public health necessities.

I ask that you instruct staff today to stop the cycle of ineffective enforcement and sir, your time is up.

My name is Steve Cox, and uh I'm on Team Sheffield.

Uh but I really like the idea of treating all of our citizens like the like the Braves.

That would be something, wouldn't it?

And uh so I'm here to root for the for the homeless community as well.

Um I don't have much to add to what's been said so far, other than um I did find some great research on homelessness criminalization.

I I sent that to all of you, so I hope you take a look at that.

Um and I just with the remainder of my time, I'll just go through a few things that have been implemented around the country that are wildly successful, and hopefully that we can hope hope that we can consider some of these.

We could employ social workers to handle complaints and respond to issues instead of law enforcement, which would help them a lot.

In Hodgeonville, Kentucky, they have a full-time social worker in the police department who acts as a co-responder to service calls.

Denver has a support team assistant assisted response program that sends a paramedic and a social worker to substance abuse and mental health calls.

We could also provide daytime shelters.

Um, for example, Must Ministries is nights only, so people have to wander the streets since they don't have a place to go.

In Kalamazoo, Michigan, uh, there's a ministry with community shelter where people can stay all day and has bathrooms, showers, computers, laundry services.

They provide two meals, socializing, and a way to stay warm.

We could designate legal camping areas in Missoula, Montana.

Uh, they have a camp called temporary safe outdoor space that includes 24 hour security, social services, and a warming shelter.

Denver again has uh several safe outdoor spaces that are monitored 24 7 and provide resources like showers, food, and case management.

Lots of lots of permanent housing initiatives going around on around the country that are excellent, including in the city of Atlanta, right, which you're probably aware of.

Um, and then lastly, um maybe the wild list idea providing a minimum basic income is is being shown to help immensely to get people back into society, not just to survive and live, but to get back into society.

Massachusetts has a GI pilot program that provides $750 a month for a year to 200 families struggling with high housing costs.

And New York City offers 1,400 per month for two years to 100 families living in shelters, and those have been really successful.

So thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Donna Court and I live at Zipco 30068.

And Chair Cupid, Commissioners, Dr.

McMorris.

I actually wanted and all staff, I wanted to thank all of you for doing the meeting tonight rather than the normal schedule, which would be next Tuesday, which is just before Thanksgiving.

Um, and yes, everybody does have holidays, and always it would be nice to if some of our other people could come, but as many of us do have to work, I I do appreciate that you all made this time so that we could come.

I wanted to thank Director Judy Jones for having worked on this for so long.

She's been amazing.

Jessica, we've been following this whole UDC plan for I think one of our uh commentators said it has been over two years, it's been longer than that.

And the I forget um director Jessica knows when the last time the UDC was updated.

So it is time, and I do stand in support of updating the amendments.

I actually did read the whole thing, and full truth, I did not understand every single word.

I am not an engineer.

I don't have expertise in all of the things, but I do believe that director Judy Jones, Director Jessica, the whole staff.

I do trust that you are making the best decisions.

Are there some things that could be amended?

Yes.

And I trust that you all will adjust them as best as you can.

If we do nothing, then nothing changes.

And I do know that something has to change because what I hear from the sad stories of of all of our folks are these are things that have been keep happening.

They will keep happening if we make no changes.

So I do urge you to start someplace.

Thank you and happy Thanksgiving.

Good evening.

Dana Johnson, resident of East Cobb, and um here representing the Cobb Chamber today.

I just want to start off by thanking you, Chairwoman Cupid, commissioners, and staff for really listening to the concerns of the business community and making some some sort of changes, both between the last hearing and this hearing as well as from last year to this year.

You really commended to foot to your ability to listen and to listen to the input you received and make some sort of changes.

I think all of us here heard about the importance of stormwater tonight.

Um, maintaining our infrastructure and finding a fair and equitable solution for how we're going to pay for really a utility that all of us need is of utmost importance.

And what I heard tonight is that if we don't find a mechanism to actually address that, then we're going to keep being in the same situation, making the same complaints and never moving it forward to actually moving in the right direction to get this done.

So thank you for bringing us forward something to actually address an important issue that we all have in the community.

And I'm saying this with the understanding that the commercial property is going to be the largest individual payers towards this, but as any business knows, you have to invest in what you're doing, or you your goods will no longer be needed in the community or even part of the conversation.

So thank you for thinking strategically about finding a way to address it.

I want to specifically thank you for extending the appeals process as well as um Ms.

Jones doing some great additions to updating the credit manual based upon some of her private sector input that we've received.

Thank you for making those changes.

We greatly appreciate it.

We will ask you to please consider uh once approved extending the implementation date the January 1st to give businesses time to budget and prepare their applications uh for the credit manual.

Uh but we do think it's important to actually get this over the goal line, uh, which is the most important thing.

Uh, with regard to the lift stations, I think Matt did a great job of explaining uh that, and I just reiterate what Matt said that it is uh very important that we have uh an ability to make judgment calls based upon what's being presented and not just a blanket statement of what should be and not looking at individual cases on where lift stations may or may not be appropriate.

Uh lastly, with regard to interceptors, uh, thank you for the uh update on the language with the definitions of renovations in there.

That's a very good addition, and we're very thankful for that.

Uh, we have heard from many restaurants and small businesses uh that the way that the occupancy standards are calculated, assuming that all restaurants are 100% occupied for their entire time of operation, really results in an overestimation of what the interceptor capacity needs are.

Uh so we would ask that to be looked at.

And that's not a code issue, by the way.

That's more of a management of how the code is interpreted issue.

We would ask that that be looked at, and maybe some conversations happen between restaurant owners and uh and the water department, so we can find a solution that works best for maintaining our infrastructure.

Time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioners Bob Johnson.

Um, it appears that we get around 60 ounces inches of rain a year in Georgia.

That should be a win, but it seems you've turned it into a liability.

It's well established in the course of these hearings that you've mismanaged the water fund or unaccountable completely for the general fund.

Now you want an additional tax, uh, it appears for and opening up a new tax authority for a project that has no plan, no inventory, no budget, and based on previous performance, no assurance that you have any ability to engineer, bid, or manage such project.

However, the most outrageous part listening tonight is transferring the liability for your dereliction on to the homeowners.

Gotta be kidding me.

If you run into the wrong group of clients, you can sit there with your arrogance.

But if you run into the wrong group of the clients with the right attorney, you're in deep trouble.

That's all I gotta say.

Richard Grossman, Clarkdale, Georgia.

Didn't plan on speaking tonight.

Um, but when I read the part about the homeowners being responsible for runoff, Clarkdale is a very specific um problem.

We live, we're surrounded by our stale with unencorrupted cob, and we have drainage that's Cobb County drainage that goes through, and we had Cobb County about a year or two ago, replacing pipes we didn't know there.

They didn't know, they found stuff they didn't know were there.

But we get runoff from a stealth that floods not my yard, but our neighbor's yard all the time.

So it's not fair in my mind for an owner property to be responsible for damage to a flood system that we may not know that's there from flooding coming from another property.

It doesn't seem a fair way to deal with the liability for maintaining something.

We may not know that's there because we didn't see the pipes.

Without a good inventory of where things are and clarification of liability for maintaining it when we didn't put it in, we didn't know it's there.

It seems an unfair thing to do in this part of code.

I love the idea of having a storm water plan and even paying for a stormwater plan, but not with the liability of the homeowner when we can't be sure of what we're reliable for, and the water's coming, particularly for Clarkdale, which is unincorporated cops surrounded by the Sayo Stell, our runners coming from the threadmill, which is not us, and they've done nothing to stop the water running down and eroding my neighbor's property.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Larry Savage.

I live in East Cobb and have since probably before many of you were born.

I'm not a fan of the stormwater plan.

I'm not a fan at all.

In fact, I am very much objecting to the stormwater utility idea and to the fundraising idea.

I'm going to piggyback on the suggestion made by some others that you table this, but not for long.

In about six weeks, the General Assembly will be in session.

They will have the legal authority that you do not have to do all of this, including the funding.

And I'm going to say it again.

So you can raise as much money as you need to do it.

So having said that, get to the subject of fee or tax.

And for the unwashed, that's all of us.

The difference is if it's a tax, there are numerous protections in the Georgia Constitution against taxation.

Very limited what can be done in the way of taxes in this state, unless you have specific authority to do it, which does not exist in this case.

But if they call it a fee, which is an idea that's been embraced here based on some other people doing it, you don't have any rights.

And that's the entire story on that distinction of tax or fee.

You don't have the constitutional rights if they call it a fee.

Period.

Now what constitutional rights am I talking about?

I'm going to read all I can here.

Article 7.

The right of taxation shall always be under the complete control of the state.

Article 9, the power granted to counties shall not be construed to extend to the following matters.

Action adopting any form of taxation.

Article 9.

Paragraph 1.

The governing authority of any county municipality or combination thereof may exercise the power of taxation as authorized by this constitution or by general law.

You don't have either.

We can have your notes if you are willing.

Okay.

It's up to you.

We'll take our next speaker.

Hi, I'm Maria Cooper.

I have several things that I need to get off my chest.

And thank you for listening to us.

Number one, please stop sneaking these critical vote meetings before and during the holidays when people are most busy with family, friends, and holiday activities.

Please stop doing that.

It is so not cool.

It is way below the belt.

Number two, animals.

Please make Cobb a mandatory spay neuter county.

Please make it that.

And please make severe penalties for neglect and or abuse.

And please put teeth in whatever rules and regulations and laws we have to for all of this, plus backyard breeders.

Well, I'm I'm hoping that most of us in this room, if not everybody, loves animals.

Please add teeth to whatever Cobb County has in the term in terms of laws, rules, and regulations.

Trash service, no takeover by the government, no monopoly.

Citizens do not need or want higher prices.

Residential suburban neighborhoods, Cobb's golden egg.

It is your responsibility to protect this, therefore, no ADUs, no weakening of codes that would allow this, which would result in more concrete, more storm water, more traffic, more crime, overcrowded schools, resulting in decreased quality education.

Finally, rain tax.

Okay, you're calling it a fee.

It amounts to a tax to all of us who actually follow the rules, follow the laws, and pay our taxes and pay our bills.

Over the years, the Board of Commissioners, people before you guys and you guys got used to transferring money from the water department to the general fund.

This is still happening.

Then you allowed uncontrolled and irresponsible development.

And lo and behold, now we have stormwater problems, and now you want to stick it to us, the citizens, to fix the problem that you, the Board of Commissioners, the government allowed to happen.

It is time to be responsible to us, the citizens that put you in office.

Do not do this, do not punish us for your mistakes.

Good evening, Donald Barth.

Live over here in Marietta.

I pay Cobb County taxes.

I am a resident of Cobb County tax.

Some people out here think, well, you got nothing to do with this.

We pay the same tax they do.

We have a city tax to go along with it.

Now I'd like to remind you, Lisa, Eric, I ask you to get ahead of this code amendment thing.

Why is stormwater such a problem?

You know why?

Because it's in the original infrastructure.

Period.

It is a part of the infrastructure.

The infrastructure's failing.

The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled every which way from Sunday.

This is a fee.

They can sit there and stomp their feet and throw a tantrum, it's a fee.

Oh, Lisa, you're gonna love this.

They even say you can go out there and do what you did with the voting and change the maps.

They give you that authority because it's very important.

Storm water affects us all.

Nobody is immune to storm water.

Stormwater picks up dog poo.

It picks up people poo, as we heard.

It picks up oil.

No matter what, storm water has to be addressed.

Why do we sit here and fail to address it?

All we're asking you for is time.

Table this and agree that you could do better.

Hire somebody to start a utility.

Don't throw it over there on the back side of water and sewage.

That's not where everybody else look at all what they do in the state of Georgia.

All around.

It's a utility, a separate utility or part of public works.

It has to be there.

It's not a well, what if storm water is a necessity?

You know that, and I know that.

So you could have got ahead of this.

All you need to do is take a minute and figure out how we're going to assess what's out there.

Make a plan.

I wouldn't do anything without knowing what I'm gonna do, except for get up and speak.

Now that I'm good at.

A plan is where you set the budget.

That's what your job is.

Policy procedure budget.

I need you to listen.

I've told you, Eric, there's a lot of stormwater coming from your side of Powers Ferry.

Over on to Marietta's side.

I haven't seen anybody address it.

But what I'm telling you is it doesn't know that there's a road there that says that's counting in that city.

So stormwater is everybody's problem.

And as leaders, leaders, please stop with this half of six months moratorium.

Good evening, Christine Rosman.

Marietta.

Hey, um, I would like to discuss that whole thing with the water transfer, which has been happening since 1998, and it's been anywhere from like skimming off the top of whatever is left over with the water department, and anywhere from 20 million dollars to 11 million dollars, and doing that every year for like at least 26 years.

Um then that money could have been towards planning, towards stormwater, towards store towards infrastructure.

And when you have that, and then you don't use those monies properly, it's misuse of funds.

That money was the water department's money, and it should have been put in.

Because if this started 25 years ago, 26 years ago, 27 years ago, we wouldn't have the problem that we have right now.

We do not want this rain tax because we don't actually trust what it is that you're doing with the money that you do get.

You squandered it, we see you squandering it, and then there are little pet projects that get more attention.

The hardships that people have talked about tonight of what they have been through is horrible, and there's this like little let's see if I have this one arrogance, absolute arrogance.

When you do not listen to what your constituents want, what they need, because you can't expect them to continue to want to live in Cobb County when they're treated like crap.

It's pathetic.

You know, you all not all of you, but you you created this mess.

And you know, what is your job?

Your job is about infrastructure and public safety.

That's really the crux of everything.

And and to squander the money on different things and little pet projects, and you know, play angel funding on somebody wants to do an entrepreneurial endeavor and what have you.

Um, we do not care for that.

And because of this, because of us seeing you squandering, we don't trust you.

So please start doing what you're supposed to be doing, which is have an agenda that is for the the citizens of this county, and not pandering to the ARC, the DNC, and whomever else is telling you what to do with the money.

Good evening.

My name's Craig Harfoot.

Um just you should table this probably for a year.

I heard that in the first meeting you wanted to tell the business people, bring them up to speed over the next year.

But here's the thing.

You came up with a number, 475.

We heard it on the news, a little news blurb from five, and they they did they acted like they covered this meeting.

Your chair's empty during the meeting.

They had a picture of you sitting there acting like you were in the meeting, last meeting.

Now it's fake news.

The 475 is fake news.

It's based on imperious surface.

So you might have put together a number for a nut divided it by the number of houses and come up with a fake number, but that isn't the truth.

But anyhow, the I agree with everything Larry said.

You know, the most of all the impervious surface in Cobb County are roads, airport runways.

If you're gonna tax that like that, and shopping centers, right there is where you got the bulk of all the impervious surface.

And then you got the county and the schools and the churches.

Well, you can't turn tax churches, so what are you gonna go around that circumvent that like you do the homeless law for vagrancies?

You can't get them for that, so now you're gonna get them for trespass.

All this stuff is just workarounds, and uh the fee, the the reason you just want to slam dunk it right now, is that so you can just whip up a bond and say, oh, the fee will cover it, and we'll just sign the papers that will raise the fee to whatever is to cover the bonds.

Well, that's that's horrible.

And we're we're in a recessionary time.

People are being laid off, right?

Going into the holidays.

We just went through the whole government shutdown.

There is no way you should be even thinking about throwing a fee on that you don't even know what it's gonna do, and it doesn't address all the people that got hurt by what we've got already.

There has been no planning, and the thing is the county government.

What this commission initially had to tax for were roads.

It all goes back to roads.

How we fund roads, roads are gonna be how you fund storm water, and you haven't even addressed the fact that you know you got a gasoline tax, but now you're on electric vehicles, and they're not paying that.

So you're not even close to being ready to pass anything, and with a comprehensive plan.

So I hope you just well know you can table it if you want, but you don't have a plan.

Good evening, um Madam Commission, Madam Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Jim Beveridge.

I reside at 1990 Country Squire Road, and I live on uh a lake you might be familiar with, Bishop Lake.

Bishop Lake was uh platted in 1930.

It's 95 years ago, and it's when Johnson Ferry Road was a dirt road, and in order to get across the Chattahoochee River, you had to take a real ferry, your Model T you had to float across the river to get you to the other side.

We're about two and a half miles up that dirt road.

Um you take a ride on Bishop Lake Road.

So since our property was platted in 1930, there's been hundreds of houses, hundreds of developments north of us that all run into a creek, and then the creek is stopped by a county and uh built where some kind of a brick antique structure that slows the water down and holds it up for a little bit.

That wasn't good enough because of all the development that came.

Then you create, you dug this thing called, and I say the county dug this thing called Bucks Pine.

Bucks Pond's about an acre, and it's full of silt.

And then the county at one time cleaned it out once and they said this is a one-time deal.

We're gonna only do it.

The reason they did it, the school buses were getting stopped by the flooding on Bishop Lake Road between Bucks Pond and Bishop Lake.

So the county put in a culvert connecting Bucks Pond and Bishop Lake.

So we have this 95-year-old lake that is the watershed for hundreds of acres, and you won't even talk about there's three property owners that back up to this pond, they don't even know that it's their responsibility, and they can't afford to dredge it, it's over a hundred thousand dollars.

Three property owners, so you're gonna put that on them so they can protect our lake with with a facility that Cobb County put in to begin with.

You put it on the homeowners, it's not right.

You gotta do, you gotta do what's right.

You gotta be good stewards.

You're not being good stewards with the water management in this county.

Good evening.

My name is Janet Peters.

I'm a Cobb County resident for 42 years or 41 years I came here in early 1984.

I have a creek in my backyard that has been overflowing and flooding since the day I moved in when I realized what happens with a good storm here in the South.

We've had a lot of problems with sewage in that creek because the pipes kept breaking.

And the couple of years ago, maybe 20, they came that the county came in and repaired those pipes.

But they're still exposed.

They shouldn't be.

They should be completely underground on the surface of that creek.

But before I go any further, there's two things that I have to say.

Pay 475 a month.

Because 57 a year, $57 a year is more to low-income residents than those that are paying high income.

And the other thing I have that takes precedent over what I came here to talk about tonight was I'm very lucky to have been here in time to say something to you all.

I relied on Cobb Link bus transportation because I don't care to drive at night.

I have a lot of tough trouble with the headlights that come at you when you're driving.

So I have a friend that will take me home, but I couldn't get here.

And where are you trying to go?

I'm standing underneath the bus stop sign and said, I'm trying to go to the commissioners' meeting tonight.

I have something to say about the sewage.

And they said, Where are you going?

I says to the Cobb County Commission, 100 Cherokee Street.

I've been here before, I know how to get here.

But I didn't want to drive at night.

That was my own caution.

And the encroaching darkness came at 5:45.

I'm still standing there.

The bus should have been there at 5.14.

So I want to say thank you, both publicly and personally, to two offices of Cobb County's finest, precinct number one, which is Officer Pamela De La Cruz and Officer Andrew Brock, who made sure that I got here tonight instead of taking you back to my house.

I'm sorry your time's up.

I'm sorry, there's there is an additional time, but thank you, ma'am.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I'm sorry, ma'am, the time has run, but thank you so much for your regards and we are yes.

Apologize that the bus was not there on time.

I'll have my assistant follow up with you to find out.

I'm going to have my assistant follow up with you.

Find out.

They deserve praise.

Thank you.

I mean, I'm standing there with track.

Thank you, ma'am.

All over the place again.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

We'll take our next speaker.

My name is Beth Chiltras, and I'm here to read a note from someone who had another commitment tonight and could not be here.

This is from Mary Clarice Hathaway, chairwoman of the Cobb County Republican Party.

And she wanted me to read this tonight.

She says, this rain tax that the commissioners want to pass is an egregious tax that is completely unnecessary and creates more burden on the taxpayer.

We don't need more taxes.

We need less.

Families don't need increased cost, and regardless of what everyone promises, these taxes will absolutely be passed on to the citizens of Cobb.

Families in Cobb already have enough tax burdens and day-to-day costs just to make ends meet.

What we already have.

Thank you.

For Mary Clarice Hathaway.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Tracy Stevenson.

May Retta.

First of all, three minutes is not nearly enough time to approach the UDC and particular items within it.

But I'll do what I can.

I'll start with failing to plan is planning to fail.

That's been my problem with the stormwater fee all along.

I don't doubt that we need infrastructure improvements on stormwater.

We all know it.

We've talked about it, we've seen it.

Problem is we don't know exactly what they are.

So multiple things can be true at once.

We need that, but yet we can hate this plan.

The chamber agrees now, oddly enough, after they were the major stakeholders that helped got this thing tabled about a year ago.

So I don't know what a backroom deal was cut with the chamber, but at the end of the day, we're the ones that pay whatever the chamber pays.

They just pass it on to us in cost.

So it doesn't go away.

So I'll step off of stormwater, and that's been said about that.

I'm more concerned in this updated code amendments that the ADUs and mansion apartments are going to come back.

I know they're in there.

I've briefly read through it.

Aren't they?

They have it as an option, aren't they?

Aren't they coming in?

Isn't there an allowance for it?

Yeah, we'd ask that you address the code amendments that are in this code package.

That is in the UDC, isn't it?

Okay, I thought that it was.

I just my apologies.

Okay, well, I'll move off of that.

Then I'm done.

But bottom line is I like I like stormwater.

You know, I again I'm not against stormwater and infrastructure expenses, just like I'm not against water or any of that.

But we don't have a plan.

You know, I think Judy Jones has done a pretty good job.

You know, she's pushed a rope up a hill.

She's attending a lot of the meetings.

I see that you were smart enough this time not to have the educational seminars because people didn't like them.

You know, they came out and you know, Lord, you just stood up there and got rocks thrown at you every night.

And uh, so I think the education part would go a long way if we had a plan.

Map it, plan it, budget it, implement it.

It's like every good business does.

Thank you.

Just a heads up before Mr.

Emkins speaks.

We've been here for almost two and a half hours.

So if there's anyone else that desires to speak, I'm gonna take a 10-minute break after your comments.

So make it quick.

We have three minutes there.

Leroy Emkin lived in Cobb County for 20 25 years.

I'm an engineer.

Everyone is talking about a plan.

The Board of Commissioners will not make the plan so that we all understand you do not have the background, the experience to make a plan with respect to fixing a problem which engineers need to fix, contractors need to fix.

You need you have a public works department, a water department.

They've got the necessary resources to understand what a plan needs to consist of.

You also need to employ a consulting engineering firm that has a massive experience in dealing with stormwater runoff problems.

They're the people that will investigate what the problem is in detail, the extent of the problem.

They're the ones that will develop the plan.

They are the ones that will implement a plan.

They're the ones that will develop a budget to implement that plan, and then they will manage the implementation of that plan.

I just want to be sure that you want that all of us understand what is involved.

It's not for the Board of Commissioners, it's not the Board of Commissioners' responsibility to develop a plan.

A plan, its implementation is done by those people who have the background, the expertise, the knowledge to do it.

So I am asking that you, the Board of Commissioners, provide the necessary funds to employ an external consulting firm to work with your public works group who have quite competent people and the water departments that have quite competent people, all working together to develop the plan and proceed to solve this problem.

It's clearly a problem.

Thank you.

We're gonna take a 10-minute break.

We'll be back at 8 40.

Good evening, everyone.

It's 840.

We are resuming our Board of Commissioners meeting this November 20th, 2025.

We are still in the midst of our public hearing for our 2025 code amendments.

I will see if we have any additional speakers.

If we have any additional speakers, we'll take you at this time.

Yes, ma'am.

Hi there.

My name is Nikki Healy.

I live in Smyrna, um, District 2.

And I am just here.

Uh well, I've worked in animal welfare for gosh, most of my life life at this point.

Um, and I'm currently serving as the Good Muse Executive Director, and I'm just here to speak on the Animal Section 10-135.

Um, and just to thank you for putting animals first in this county.

I appreciate um the efforts that I see this county go through with our Spain neuter vouchers, and now this um amendment is gonna do a lot of good.

So I just came here to thank you all very much for caring for the animals and uh director Steve Hammond for all he does for the animals.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Greg Lowry.

I've lived in uh Cobb County for about 40 years.

I also live up in the Northwest Corridor near Lake Altoona.

Uh I just want to make a quick comment about uh code 122-126.

That that code, thanks to the water department and uh director Jones.

That's just to clarify language.

It doesn't, it's not stopping any list stations, it's just to clarify what's already in the guidelines.

You you know about the uh land study, the northwest land vulnerability assessment.

So this is just to just to solidify some of the policies and guidelines that were in that.

Um so respectfully acting asking that you approve that change.

That's all.

Thanks.

We'll take our next speaker.

Are there any additional speakers?

Okay, not seeing any, we'll close the public hearing.

And what we will do is utilize this opportunity to address a number of the comments that were shared.

Also, commissioners, this would be opportunity for any of you to ask any questions for clarification before there are any votes this evening.

And I know I always put our district one commissioner on the spot.

But if you don't, I would open it up for any commissioner that has any comments or questions as we try to address this laborious um matter of fact.

Before we do that, let me do something which might make this a lot easier.

I'm gonna go through the list of code amendments and see what we all have agreement in moving forward.

We can move those in bank first and get those out of the way and then spend the majority of our time addressing those that have had uh most commentary and maybe of most controversy this evening.

If you all are okay with that, just let me find my notes.

And those include chapter 50, 83, 11, and 122.

And note that the nuisance section, oh well, part of 80 86, thank you.

So that will leave chapter two, chapter 10, 18, 22.

Let me see what I have here.

106 and 114.

Because I'm gonna walk through those one by one and seeing if we have general consensus, and if we do, we'll vote on all of those in bank.

Um we don't need to necessarily have a formal vote at this time, but commissioners, is there agreement to support the code amendments under chapter two?

Just by a simple nod.

Is there let me ask is there any disagreement?

Okay, I'm not hearing any, so I'm gonna put that in the bank.

How about chapter 10 as it pertains to animals?

We're all good.

Okay, is there any disagreement?

I'm not hearing any.

Okay, building regulations, chapter 18.

Okay, not hearing any concerns.

How about chapter 22 with respect to cable and video service providers and state franchise holders?

Okay, not hearing any concerns.

Okay, chapter 54, as it pertains to fire prevention and protection.

Okay, seem good.

All right, and chapter 106 as it pertains to streets, sidewalks, and other public places.

Okay, I'm not hearing any concerns, and then chapter 114 as it pertains to taxation.

I think one second, Commissioner.

I can't have the one that's just the one.

Okay, all right.

I'm not hearing any concerns with respect to those chapters.

So with that, commissioners did I miss 1202.

102.

Thank you.

I did miss 102.

Thank you.

Are there any concerns with respect to 102 solid waste?

Yes, Jessica.

I see you coming up.

Um, sorry, one quick suggestion I'll say, Madam Chair.

In chapter 50, there's also the amendment to the noise ordinance pertaining to the horses, the equamp facilities, so it may make some sense for the board to consider that along with the okay.

Let me get that specific code section.

I think that's 50-258, unless I member down one second.

Is that correct?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so in addition to adding 102 for solid waste, which I bypassed, I would like to include chapter 50-258, which pertains to um noise and echoing facility.

These are the ones we're gonna hear we're gonna discuss.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, I'm not hearing any objections, so I'm not gonna make a formal shees, Commissioner Gamble.

No, when I asked about 102, um, I have a comment.

You have a comment and again while they removed several of the residential definitions, they have left in it's on page 66.

Okay, this everyone can find signed if we give everybody a second to turn to that.

Yes, ma'am.

It says residential servant service unit means single family duplexes or two unit multifamily dwellings, triplexes or three unit multi-family dwellings, quadruplexes, or four units.

I know we have some five and six unit attached townhomes.

Okay, so again, I have uh an issue that we are calling out specific types of residential and not leaving it as a blanket definition.

Okay, so we will not include that in this motion, and then we can discuss that before we go into storm water utilities since there was less debate about that.

Don't go too far because I'll call you back up after we have this initial motion.

So I'm going to pull then and comment to 102.

Do you want me to pull 102?

We were gonna discuss okay.

I'm gonna pull 102.

It's okay.

We'll pull that for discussion.

All right, commissioners.

I may need your help here so that I then I refer to all of these accurately as we have a number of code amendments before us.

But I move that we approve the proposed amendments to chapters two, as it pertains to administration, 10 as it pertains to animals, 18 as it pertains to building regulations, 22 as it pertains to table and video service providers and state franchise holders.

Chapter 54, pertaining fire prevention and protection.

Skipping one 106 as it pertains to streets, sidewalks, and other places.

Chapter 114 as it pertains to taxation, and then I'm also going to include Chapter 50-258 as it pertains to fireworks, noise, and equine facilities.

And 114?

Did you say?

Yes, I did.

Was that in the motion?

Yes, that was a motion.

Second.

Second, and there was clarification that 114 was included in that list.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

Is there any other discussion?

All right, I'll call the question.

The motion carries 5-0.

So why don't we go ahead and let's address chapter 102 before we get to stormwater utilities and the lift station.

We can have uh yes, you come up, Miss Kimberly.

Thank you.

And there have well Commissioner Gambrill had one question with respect to that definition.

And so why don't we address that first?

And then Commissioner Burl also said she had some questions on that chapter as well.

Thank you so much.

Uh Chairwoman Commissioners, uh County Manager.

Um, okay, so I worked with the county attorney's office on this.

We did remove the definitions defining what the dwellings were, but we left um the information in about the types of um, I guess we're not defining the dwellings, we're just saying that these are the residential types of dwellings that we would have uh curb side pickup act.

And so we did discuss that, but because we were not defining the actual dwellings themselves, because that would be in another portion, another part of the code.

Um the county attorney's office felt like that it was okay to leave that portion right, and while I understand that we do have more than four attached homes together that are still single family.

So my concern is you're not addressing when we go up to five, six plus attached, but we've we've defined up to four.

Okay.

So I'm not I'm not sure how you you know you're gonna leave a gray area here if if we don't include or more, or if we just somehow define single family residential differently.

I know because there was reliance on legal, maybe it might be best to defer to legal to help us address that concern.

Yeah, and I don't know if we're working with you on this particular issue, but at when you get to that many multi-developments, or do they have their own trash system that they have their dumpsters that they take care of?

Um when you get to when you get to a certain level, uh I believe they are considered like commercial um accounts rather than individual um like residential curb site pickup interesting and there's and there's there's a definition there for commercial okay, okay.

Yes, Commissioner Gambrill, you're you're speaking and not speaking at the same time.

I didn't say anything.

I I see your body language, so I don't know if you still have concern or if you're comfortable with the clarification.

I don't feel comfortable with the clarification because I know this board has approved more than four attached single family homes town homes.

Um so again, I don't see how because it's over four, it's gonna go to a commercial if it's still single family ownership.

So I I disagree with that, but again, that's my opinion.

If I'm not the subject matter expert on this, if we want to go to four or more, is that the definition that you're wanting to have?

Well, my concern is again, we know we've approved more, but this is only defining up to four.

So how are you going to cover if it's five, six or more than four?

Would you want to do four or more?

I'm asking you.

That's the question.

Yeah.

But I guess you're the legal department, and you're the ones that are supposed to recommend how we should do that.

That would be a way if you want to address this issue, sure.

Okay.

On behalf of the staff, is it amenable to this board to ask to add four or more units right after the part where it stops at four?

I think that would cover some of the things that the that the board has done and approved.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, just give us a moment to look through this.

Okay.

Yeah.

We know that that definition just now meets Commissioner Grambrill's interest for the rest of the board that has to approve it.

I just want us to be clear on what that section is.

My own I'm looking for language is what I'm looking for.

I'm looking for to see if it says multifamilies on page 66 of 488.

Why didn't we just call out multifamily once you get to a certain number?

There's a reason why there's a disinguished, and I don't know if it's specifically being distinguished to four for another reason that's not being shared, because saying four or more attached could include many more than four.

And I think Lori worked with Kimberly on this.

Maybe Kimberly be able to answer that question on why the specific definition of the situation.

Okay, I don't have microphones.

Well, traditionally, most of the units that are being serviced for residential curbside pickup are single family homes, town homes, um, some condos, um, and then as it's listed here, as I mentioned before, if it's if it's larger units or like um multifamily as far as like apartments, that's considered commercial, and so that would be considered a commercial account rather than a regular curbside residential account.

And so it does it does show or does state that the unit within the following category, single family dwellings, duplex or two-unit multifamily dwellings, triplex or three-unit multifamily dwellings, quadruplex or four-unit attached multifamily dwellings and mobile homes.

So it lists all of the types that um the haulers are servicing currently right now.

Yeah, and looking at it, it says single family colon, and that's the list.

So if we say four or more, even if it's five or six, it still needs to be a single family dwelling versus it being multifamily attached with several units.

So that may be a clear enough distinction.

And our community development director has decided to join the conversation.

I'm sorry, Kimberly.

Um I was just in and reading the definition.

I'm wondering if maybe we could say single family attached or detached instead of just single family, because we understand that from a zoning standpoint, a multifamily unit with four units is multi-family residential, but if we also have single family attached and detached, which are different than multi-family units.

So maybe that might be a solution to say single family attached or detached, and then leave the rest of the definition as is without saying four or more.

Right, because if it's residential, single family attached or detached, we know that town homes from for our standpoint here in Cobb County are single family use.

Um they're attached single family units.

Okay, however, many town homes you have in one bank of townhomes.

So that may be a solution to achieve what Commissioner Gamble.

I see Commissioner Gambel nodding.

So okay, we can modify that language to say residential service unit means each unit or units within the following categories: single family attached or detached dwelling, and that's not a colon, that's a semicolon.

So yes, it would have to be modified to say single family attached or detached clerks.

Are you okay with that language?

And that change?

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gramble, did you have any other question?

Commissioner Burrell.

Thank you.

Hi, Kimberly.

Um page 69 enforcement.

So you said enforcement enforcement uh 102-12.

This does this say that you, the director, um sustainability, waste and beautification director, or his or her designees.

Um what does that do to code enforcement officers?

Or who will you be enforcing this now?

Is it solid waste?

Okay, so under this section, we just clarified the department name to sustainability waste and beautification.

Uh let's see.

And we just really clarified, like if um it in the past it said uh waste division manager, and is it's now it now says sustainability waste and beautification director or his or her designee, um, which would be who uh the haulers would contact if they needed to um fix uh an issue or clarify um a problem.

So we would not be taking the place of code enforcement officers, no.

But currently, right now, if a hauler needs to get a permit, they would come to you know our office and all we were doing was just um updating the department name and the name the title of the of the particular individual that the haulers would be coming to okay, and then um I'm not sure if it's 102-65 on page 7.

The way the code is now, um the haulers have to offer recycling, but it's up to the customer to um subscribe, if you will.

But originally I think you had mandatory recycling in there, and I'm not a fan of mandatory anything, but um now it just says required.

So, what's the difference of mandatory and required?

So we clarified this language to say exactly what what you just mentioned.

So the haulers um are offering recycling to to their customers to the residents of Cobb County, and if the customer requests that or if they want recycling, then the hauler would provide a container so that they could uh recycle curbside.

Yes, but it is not it's it's not a mandatory um uh service, you know, as a resident in Cobb County.

You can choose if you want to recycle or not.

But you took the the offer or option out, but but they inserted the word elective.

Pardon?

But they inserted the word elective.

So where are you?

What page 77?

Required provision of residential elective recycling.

Okay, and under A, it's where it says all collectors must offer to their residential customers the service of having their recyclable materials collected.

So it does have offer under A section A under 102-65.

Okay, you took option out.

Okay, okay, thank you.

Okay, you're all right.

So I'm good.

Okay, thank you, Matthew.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

So commissioners, with that, I move that we approve section one oh two with the change to find this.

Yes, unfortunately, that's such a long section.

I'm just trying to get the toction one oh two-five definitions to change the residential service unit language to state in the first clause that residential service unit means each unit or units within the following categories, colon, single hyphen family, detached, or attached dwelling, and then keep the rest of that intact.

Okay, that was a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Is there any further discussion?

All right, we'll call the question.

The motion carries five zero.

Thank you, commissioners.

That now takes us to the discussion of our stormwater utility and lift stations.

And because there was less discussion regarding the lift stations, why don't we discuss that matter first?

And then we'll go to stormwater.

And Judy, if you can help guide us to the correct place.

Our books have what page?

A section, yes.

The lift station code is in section 122-126.

Oh, thank you.

What page?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

And it's right in front of me.

Thank you.

What page?

97 pronoun.

All right.

So Commissioner Gamble, I know you've had a lot of attention to this code section.

I will defer to you initially to see if you have any comments or questions before I go down the rest of the dias.

Well, first of all, um, I know we had um two speakers state that we were banning lift stations.

So and Judy, so if you could please explain, um, because as I read this code, I'm not seeing that lift stations are banned.

So could you explain essentially what this code is saying?

Sure.

So this code is not changing the um the requirements for a private commercial lift station that serves multiple parcels, except for we're actually lessening the requirements because we don't make them do an escrow account.

Um so that's that's still allowed.

It also does not change the requirements for a lift station that serves a single parcel, whether that be residential or or commercial.

So in the language you have proposed, in no way does it take away the the opportunity for a property owner to potentially have a lift station.

So is for a private lift station for commercial that serves multiple properties, it does not change the requirements, but they still have to meet the requirements in the code, but we're not changing those requirements.

So what it does clarify is the water system's long-standing position of not wanting any more public lift stations.

Thank you.

Okay, commission okay.

Commissioner Burrow, you can go ahead.

Um so private lift stations are not being removed from this the only private lift stations that are being removed from this are private lift stations that serve multiple residential properties, single family residential properties that serve multiple or single multiple.

So what's what's being removed is private lift stations that serve multiple single family residential properties.

So a lift station that would be run by HOA okay for multiple homes, right?

But they could be single family homes or multiple family homes, apartments, or no apartments of private lift stations for apartments are still allowed.

Because it's commercial.

Oh, okay.

So right now the director reviews and to see if they meet the requirements and approves or denies the application for a lift private lift station.

Our plan review staff, yes.

Okay.

And is there an appeal process if it's denied or what happened?

There is not because for the private lift stations, it's specified in code what those requirements are.

So if they meet those requirements, it gets approved.

If they don't meet those requirements, it doesn't get approved.

And that's that's it.

Okay.

So nothing's changing if that's already in the the way it is, I for private lift stations that serve multiple commercial properties, correct?

For private lift stations that serve multiple commercial properties, correct?

Okay.

Okay.

Are there any other comments or questions?

Okay.

I can share that I'm sensitive to the homeowners that not only have spoken here tonight, but have sent emails that live around the Lake Alatoona area.

And I understand why in 2018 we put that specific agreement in place recognizing the environmental sensitivity of that area.

My only concern is the way that this is written, it's not just going to impact that area.

And it seems to remove that discretion for the entire county.

So I'm wondering is there a wind-wind to continue to protect those environmental surf environmentally sensitive areas and still not have language that seems to send a strong message that Cobb County is not welcoming development that would require a lift station.

Because what I'm hearing from several developers is that that kind of statement looks as if Cobb County is just not welcoming growth, which is something that we don't want to necessarily discourage growth at a smart growth, but we do want to be sensitive to areas that have heightened environmental concerns.

We actually we have not taken over any.

Let me not say take over in helping address the challenges that have arisen from lift stations that are serving subdivisions.

And for any of us here on the DIS or in the audience who've been part of an HOA board, know that of all the things that that volunteer leadership has to do, one of those things that they probably would not ever perceive they would need to do is to be responsible for a failed lift station.

And the way that our policy is today, we would we could be putting that onus on that board.

So I understand the concerns around that, but I would love to see us consider a policy that maybe some other jurisdictions have that facilitate development of subdivisions that may need a lift station and look at other ways that those can be those can be implemented.

Like I know you and I have discussed regional lift stations or yes, regional lift stations that could serve a broader area, and that's not necessarily precluded with this code amendment, but I'm just telling you right now the way that it's drafted, it's sending a very strong message that Cobb County is not going to welcome additional development that may need a lift station.

Yes.

If if Judy, for clarification, a point of clarification with new development, it excludes residential from that development.

Is that correct?

But it includes commercial, excludes residential on new development for private lift station.

New development for a private lift station includes commercial, yes.

Okay, it just excludes residential.

Yes.

Unless it's a single family home.

Excludes single, well, unless it's just one property.

Yes, if it's one residential parcel, it can have a lift station.

Right, right.

What we're talking about is a subdivision development.

Or or the question that I raised last time, a multi multi-use development, it would not be applicable if there's uh residential within that development.

Interesting.

Single family residential within that development, not apartments, because that's it might not have apartments.

Yeah, some multifamily have combination of single family.

Right, and that was the question I asked last time if there was a work around to have a mixed use development as it relates to the lift station.

So yes, the concern about having a mixed use development on a on a private lift station would be that if you have residential properties and not an apartment, but they own their own units, fee simple, and then you have another entity that's responsible for the lift station, and that entity is not maintaining the lift station, those people in their in their condos or or townhomes are just kind of at the will of the other entity, and that company doesn't do what they're supposed to do, and then they don't have sewage in their home, it can be a tough situation.

Okay, because I just wanted to piggyback on that because I can't I share that same concern because in my district there are quite a few mixed developments that are retail on the bottom condo apartments above, and they're all governed by an HOA or I mean, so it's it's it's very complex, and as I've I've shared, one of the things that concern me about this is I I can honor what's going on by Lake El Tuna, but also we're taking a sledgehammer to something that really needs more of a scalpel because there's other pockets of the county that I have concern that this would limit the options in those those areas, and I think mixed use is a I'm still not sure I'm getting a clear answer on how that would be impacted if it's a if it's a true mixed use facility or community.

But I guess as Director Jones mentioned, this is only the first step to then determine if the water department then looks at other factors which then would support either the lift station being approved or not.

So to me, this doesn't necessarily ban what you're you know, you're referencing.

Um it's just again kind of giving the framework for her department and her employees to then go, okay.

Do they meet this?

And then they walk through other sections of the code that we are not considering tonight.

We are not amending those other sections that they also use to determine if a lift station is applicable or not.

So again, this is existing language that we've always had, and under the existing language, we've always been able to, or her staff, not the board, has been able to approve lift stations.

So to me, this is again just refining giving giving them better parameters, but then they are going to continue to walk through the other aspects that they look at considering in approving a lift station or not, and as um was stated in um director Jones's email, um sorry you know, she specific specifically stated there are no changes to the code for private lift stations serving only one property, residential or commercial.

The proposed code amendments do not change requirements for private lift stations serving more than one non-residential property, except that we lessen the requirements not by not requiring an escrow account.

So in some respects, we're making it a little bit easier because we've taken away the escrow account that was once required.

Um she also states that please note that the proposed public lift station code amendments do not preclude the water system from building a regional lift station.

So again, the the code amendments that we were given here, she has explicitly stated it does not preclude us from building a regional lift station.

So you know, I know fear mongling was used in a video today, and to me, this is essentially that because our director herself has said this is not going to preclude the water system from building a regional lift station or approving anyone from having a lift station approved in the future.

So with respect to them to the mixed use, the the way that the code is written as proposed, it says private lift station serving more than one non-residential property or multifamily residential property may be considered subject to the following conditions.

And the first one is a single viable entity that is not a homeowners association is responsible for the ongoing costs.

So mixed use would be allowed with what you're saying with the businesses on the bottom and then condos on the top, but not if it is a homeowners association that's that's owning the lift station.

Yeah.

Yes.

Go ahead, Commissioner Burlen.

Um 122, 126.

You this is in response to some questions that we had.

The purpose of this code change is to clarify the water system's longstanding positions of not supporting public lift stations, and this continues the approval of private lift stations for new single family residential subdivisions.

So a commercial would still come to you or your staff or the review committee and have to meet all the requirements.

And are they bonded or what are the requirements that precludes the county from having to bear the costs should they fail or go under?

For a private lift station, it's because it's private and it's not county owned, so we would not we don't have any responsibility because we don't own it.

But if it fails and they don't they're not responsible or they're bankrupt, what is there a bond that is associated with it to cover those costs so that it doesn't fall back on the county?

No, if it's it I'm I'm asking Judy, y'all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Burrow.

Let's be respectful and let her ask her a question with that.

I'm just asking questions.

Yes, go right ahead, ma'am.

So if it's a private lift station and it's failing, that would fall under EPD's jurisdiction.

If it's failing and it's overflowing, then EPD would come in and they would be the enforcement agency to have it to have the property owner repair it.

But the county would not be responsible for stepping in and helping them repair it.

Would be the completely the property owner's responsibility.

So private lift stations would still be allowed for commercial properties on and reviewed on a case by case basis.

Yes.

Okay, and where they wouldn't be allowed, period is um a single family or single um property subdivision, residential subdivision development, a subdivision that has multiple properties that are single family dwelling units, correct?

Okay, Commissioner, are you okay if that's the follow-up question?

No, well no, I'm just saying they wouldn't be allowed at all on new subdivisions, more than one property, correct.

But they are they would be reviewed right now the way the code is they would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Yes, right now, if as long as they met the requirements in the code, they would be approved.

Okay, excuse me, Commissioner Burr wanted to follow up.

Okay, the EPD has jurisdiction over failed private lift stations.

Yes.

Okay.

So why are then will we not depend on the EPD to cover a private failed lift station for a subdivision?

We would.

But we get the calls from the residents that are gonna be asking us to help them.

But why don't we just refer them to the EPD?

EPD is not gonna help them either.

So then if we know that's the case, then I can't perceive us not seeing how the public lift station could be bolstered if we know we're already going to support that.

Why not create some type of middle ground if we're not going to completely defer to the EPD for a private lift station?

So we what we're saying is no new subdivisions unless they're on a regional system.

They could be on septic tank, but there's the vast majority of Cobb County has access to gravity sewer.

There's very few places in Cobb County that don't have access to gravity sewer.

Yes, you should and you showed me a map like the largest area of the county, like you said there could be pockets that are not served, but the largest area is going to be in district four in some outside of well, the map that Judy showed me the largest area that we drew a circle around.

I'm not saying there isn't significant area, but the largest area that we saw was in district four.

So any new subdivision that would be built in that area would have to be covered by septic or a regional sewer system if this code were to pass today.

That is correct.

Okay.

And I'm hearing from you answering questions that there still is a lot of discretion in the code, but I can share with Commissioner Gambrill is not necessarily fear-mongering that's occurring, but there's very strong language in the code that seems to preclude the consideration for lift stations.

When it says before the discretion, the discretion is how the code is written today, it states that the county discourages that the county shall eliminate or deem feasible and appropriate by the director.

The concern is when a developer or someone who's looking to expand here sees terms like shall not provide.

Um there's another area.

No new private lift stations that serve more than one family residential property shall be approved for plans submitted after no oh no new private lift stations that serve more than one single family residential property shall be approved.

It's that very strong, no new shall not be that has people concerned in what's sending a very strong statement that seems whether or not there is discretion or not, it seems to remove significant discretion that we have today.

And that's just my concern is we are all here in this wonderful county because Cobb has been a place that has attracted growth, and I'm very concerned about us sending a signal that that is no longer the county that we live in when we have that kind of strong language.

I like us having the discretion to be sensitive to areas that we should be sensitive to.

The discretionary language we have now about public lift stations.

Yes, ma'am, is that when somebody is looking to develop property, they don't know if we're going to approve it or not.

And that's where we have run into problems where a developer buys a property, thinks that they are going to be able to put in a lift station, thinks that the county will take a public lift station, and then we tell them no, we're not the water system does not want to take a public lift station in that area.

Can we put in language that says the county will consider approval or disapproval based off its assessment?

That still gives you the discretion.

It still makes it clear that they don't have a definite runway.

Well, I would the language doesn't state that today, it just states it states that it will be discouraged and it will eliminate, but it doesn't say that the count it doesn't say that the discretion lies within the department to consider approval or disapproval based on its assessment.

So that I would have to defer to legal if they feel like that that would be appropriate language.

I'm on page 97, yes.

At the top, A1 and Chair, I'd have to consider the specific language that you were referring to in a vacuum.

I mean, you could make this more which line, which number, which 122-12.

I'm looking at it A1.

So how would it how would you have it read the county water system has the discretion to approve or disapprove lift stations based on its assessment?

Now based on I'm not an engineer, so based on its assessment of you could say a number of factors, or based on its assessment of the impact that it might you would have to help lead lead and determining what that assessment is based on.

Because I trust the staff to be able to make a that assessment.

We rely on stormwater to give us that information in a zoning hearing.

Yes, ma'am.

Well, I guess you know, Bill Bill, uh I I'm trying to help you here.

You're asking for language, but it does say where deemed feasible and appropriate by the department director.

It says it will eliminate we gotta read the you got to read the first clause.

The second clause has no weight unless you read the first clause of that sentence.

You can't just pick a phrase out and give it meaning without context.

And that part only that point of discretion only applies to the first part.

It doesn't give it authorization to do something, it removes the ability to do something.

It only removes the ability to public.

Tell me where in that does it give them authorization for approval with discretion.

It gives them it gives them discretion to remove and eliminate.

Show me in that sentence or in that whole clause where it gives them any authorization to approve with discretion.

And again, we're only talking about public lift stations.

If you go to the I agree, and if you go to number two, it says the owner or developer of a new development or redevelopment shall not provide wastewater service by constructing a new public lift station.

And again, Judy has already covered why we don't want to have a public lift station.

But then number three comes back and says that we shall not accept ownership of a private lift station.

Nowhere does it say we would not approve a private lift station.

It essentially affirms that we will not approve a public lift station for the reasons that Judy has already given.

So again, to me, the first sentence number one, again, the county shall eliminate existing public lift stations.

I think Judy, you said we had six, if I remember correctly.

Public lift stations, we have 29.

Or 29.

Okay.

So we have 29 public lift stations.

Many of those lift stations over time have been able to connect to sewer because sewer has finally been extended to that area.

So again, what I'm kind of hearing from Judy is again, we're expecting more of these over time as we develop into these areas.

The public list stations will be able to connect.

Hence, we're not going to accept any new ones.

But then as far as the private ones, we are not eliminating or banning private ones.

This code is just saying the county will not take responsibility for a private lift station.

It is banning it in section A5.

It is providing no runway.

It's providing a excuse me, B5.

It's providing no runway for consideration for a subdivision.

It's saying no, if no new private lift station that serves more than one single family residential property shall be approved.

And it falls back on the policy statement in A1, which even though it's there for public reason, is it's gen A1 sends a very strong statement, even though it's under public, saying that lift stations are just discouraged.

But I think that there could be a runway for consideration for subdivisions to be built to a public standard and taken on by the county, which is what a lot of our neighboring jurisdictions are doing to facilitate this in subdivisions.

I do not think an HOA should be responsible for taking on an HOM for taking on a lift station.

But I do think there should be consideration for how that could be facilitated in the county.

And right now, all the language seems to discourage seems to discourage that from taking place.

And yes, this is talking specifically about one instance or one nuance, and this is well, two subdivisions, and also any single commercial parcel because only multiple commercial parcels can fall under this.

You can't have a lift station for one commercial parcel.

You can't you can't.

A private lift station, a private lift station for a single commercial or single residential.

Okay, I thought I heard you say that a lift station can't be considered for one commercial parcel.

One it has to serve as a private, have to be private for one single parcel.

Oh, okay.

So a commercial property can have a lift station for one commercial property.

Yes.

Okay, so then the only issue is the subdivision.

Yeah, right.

So I guess to clarify, so yes, the point is of this is the water system does not want to accept any new public lift stations that just serve one subdivision because the cost it's expensive to run.

So it's a lot to maintain.

The most of the county is already covered by gravity sewer.

There are some areas that aren't right now, but that is what we are trying to eliminate of a bunch of little pocket little lift stations here or there that just serve one subdivision that's a public lift station.

Can you talk to us about a regional lift station?

So a regional lift station would be a lift station that serves an area, so it would cover multiple parcels and multiple developments, and we do have regional lift stations in in the county.

Is there a there's really only one area in the county right now that I envision that that would be appropriate to put a regional lift station in, possibly put a regional lift station in in the future, and that's the southwest cobb area.

We have no plans to do that.

Our long-range wastewater management plan right now says that that area will never have gravity sewer in it, so we don't have plans to put one there, but it it might be possible to do it in the future.

Uh the rest of the county to put a pump station in, it's really gonna serve one little area here, one little area there.

So, how can we support the sensitivity of the Aloona area and not restrict the potential for development in the southwest Cobb area?

Because I'm hearing that's the only place eligible, but that there are no plans to do it.

Is there a way that development can occur that eventually lends itself to a regional lift station?

Not really.

I mean, the the water system would have to put one in a developer's not gonna probably put a regional lift station in, they're they're only gonna want to spend the money to put a lift station that only serves one one property, one development.

I'm thinking like a fee that people like put money into that eventually gets to that.

Well, I see too.

We I mean you can make an assessment area where you get paid back.

That's similar to but typically those you don't recoup all your costs over time, and that means that the county has to upfront the money, and the I'll just be honest.

The water system has a lot of projects that we need funding for now that we don't have funding for, so that would be a project that we don't currently have funding to do.

Yeah, exactly.

I hear you.

That's why, in talking to some other jurisdictions, there is a very hefty cost for them to put in a development because they know they need to pay for the operation of a lift station, and in some areas of the metro area, they're willing to pay that cost.

Is it is it possible for us to consider a plan where they pay a certain amount to have that opportunity to develop that could eventually go towards this development?

I see, yeah.

Well, I was gonna ask you, are you talking about the tax fee?

Well, impact, not necessarily an impact fee.

The only agreement I'm thinking of is something similar to what we have in Northwest Cobb, where you have that large lift station that serves an area.

Now you could run into future palms or people want very high dense development, but if you constrain it, I thought that was a regional retention pond.

A regional retention facility.

Well there was a well what you do is the capacity for the infrastructure out there has been parsed off to different properties.

Is that something that can be done here where developers can pay for it?

Well, that would be difficult because for a regional lift station.

I'm talking about for eventual eventual regional lift station.

All I'm trying to do is get us to a point where we are not constraining the rest of the county out of concern for one part of the county.

And right now, even though the possibility is there, what I'm hearing is even on the possibility is there, the likelihood of that occurring is never.

I wouldn't say never, but not in the immediate future.

But for a the problem with if with a regional lift station, you have to have the list station there before the development occurs.

So you can't have a development come in and pay money for something that hasn't been built yet.

Well, do we have that happen with traffic lights?

We do, don't we?

Don't we have developers come in and say anticipation of the growth of this area put money in this bucket for traffic lights?

But they're developing exactly.

Um but that but we just allow that fund to sit there until the development arises where you meet you meet the metrics, and then we take that money and put it towards the traffic light.

But they're in Verzonner, but we're gonna have the same concept though.

We would have to build the lift station first.

You could put a development in and not have a traffic light yet.

You can't build a development that needs sewer that doesn't have the lift station reserve it yet.

Okay, okay.

I received that.

I'm trying to I would never oh sorry, go ahead.

I'm first, please.

Okay.

I have a suggestion.

First of all, Mr.

Rowling, if we table this one section now, what's the time frame that it has to come back before it starts the process of the public hearing and everything all over again?

60 days or 30 days.

Yeah, I'd have to do that calculation.

I don't I don't be next year.

And it was outside of the meeting.

I don't know if Jessica already has it.

You already know Kelly.

Um so the code amendments have to the board has to take action on the code amendments within 60 days after they're advertised.

The first advertisement, I believe, ran on August October 2nd.

Um, I think or roughly right around there, so the board wouldn't have another meeting prior to that 60-day window expiring.

Because I mean it was the ninth, it'd be a week short.

We've tabled, I remember a code pertaining to tethering animals.

We heard it that night, we didn't vote on it.

We came back the next time and we heard it.

Did we have to vote it down?

It's the advertising that's gonna get us.

I I don't recall that one that may have might have been before my time, but I know that we've had other instances where there's been things where the board expressed an interest in possibly tabling, but just that 60-day window is expired, and so at that point you would have to start all over again with readvertising and everything.

We could have a special call meeting.

We can do something.

Well, there's multiple codes.

I know that there's a code section that was left off regarding nuisance abatement that we were looking at bringing back earlier next year, so this can come back earlier next year.

There's been a lot of discussion around this, and the more that I get correspondence from people in the Lake Alatoona area and hurt people tonight, I do believe there are there are some very unique considerations for that area that should not be overlooked.

I'm very concerned also from the correspondence that I've heard from people in the development community about the signal that it sends when we put in very strong language that's prohibiting us from considering lift stations, and then from talking to other jurisdictions that provide a run-way to considering lift stations.

I'm concerned about Cobb County being left behind.

And then Cobb County just saying our growth days are behind.

Help me understand how we could support environmentally sensitive areas without making that kind of statement.

And so we can eventually facilitate development of one part of the county.

I'm sorry, I see Garble's hand and your hand.

I just had a follow-up question to the regional lift station.

If septic is available in the area, would we still look to build a regional lift station, or is that only where septic is not available?

It would we would only look at putting in a regional lift station to facilitate development, or possibly if we were having a bunch of failing septic tanks that were a problem, and there was no other way to serve them than a lift station, a regional lift station.

Um but I would like to clarify that there is lots of areas in Cobb County that can be developed on gravity sewer.

Okay.

We have lots of areas areas that have gravity sewer available.

Okay.

I guess I'm looking at larger areas, and there may be PACAS, just like Eric said, there may be PACAs that need a lift station, there may be PACAS that can be developed as well.

I just know the largest area that I saw on the map would need a lift station, the largest undeveloped area in District 4 would need some type of lift station.

I don't know if that's the largest undeveloped area in District 4, but there is a large area currently right there that doesn't have sewer available.

Okay, Commissioner Gamble, you've been patient.

And I'd like to just add because as Judy said, you know, essentially the county would have to upfront the cost for a regional lift station to facilitate development in an area.

The county did approve, and Commissioner Burl and Cupid, you were on the the board at this time, approved for the sewer line to be put up along Cobb Parkway in the northwest corner that serves the pumpkin vine sewer agreement area.

However, one of the issues that we're having with developing in that area is because the property owners don't want to pay the sewer assessment fee to connect to the line that we put in because the cost, but the county has already bore that cost to put in the sewer line to help facilitate development, but we still can't get people to connect because they don't want to pay the cost.

We all know that Wall Star is coming up in that area.

Um I personally spoke to representatives of Whalstar, they are not concerned about the language that is being proposed because we sat, we worked with them.

They understand they will need a lift station to service, but they will be able to lift to Cobb Parkway and then flow by gravity.

This code amendment change does not impact Well Star being in being developed.

So I think we're making more out of this because again, what we're talking about will take other actions of the board agreed that are going to be financially impactful down in the South Cobb area and potentially up in the northwest corner as well.

But the language that's being proposed here does not stop those conversations.

I absolutely agree with you.

But the Wall Star we know already has a path for it.

The concern was the additional development that would be attracted near a health system.

If you look at where we have health systems today, you see other ancillary development around it, which would need additional support, which I think was the concern shared, not necessarily directed concern from Wall Star leadership.

Well, and actually, in that pumpkin vine agreement, it was explicitly stated in order for um Pauling to treat it, it had to flow by gravity from the site.

So that is that is kind of a requirement that the board at that time agreed when they when they took that that agreement, and Judy has other sections of code that we're not going to discuss because we're getting too much in the weeds.

That again, it's not maybe necessarily the lift station that's preventing some of our properties up in the northwest counter corner from being developed, but it's other aspects that they don't flow by gravity, which again this code section does not address that, it just addresses the lift station.

I agree with you 100%.

I think the issue is not necessarily keep impacting Will Star, it's about what this code would do for other surrounding development, and not just surrounding development, but development throughout the county.

But I agree, I agree with you 100%, 100%.

What happens if something is in the city limits?

They still get their water from us, so they still would have to go through the review process to be approved or not.

We follow the guidelines of our code when we look at lift stations applied in the city to applied for in the city limits.

Okay, Commissioner Burrell, I will share um so essentially we have a city that chose to override our recommendations, said they wanted a lift station.

Since I have been in office, that lift station has failed twice.

The homeowners have not been able to manage it, so that municipality has had to come in and fix the lift station issues.

So we have had an had examples of where cities have come in and said, No, we're gonna have you approve this, but then they have to take over responsibility of maintaining the lift station.

And so I guess that is why number three.

Um, you know, if we're if we're talking about tabling this, I think we should at least approve number three of the proposed code because it says the county shall not accept ownership of private lift stations.

So you know, I know we're now talking about tabling this, but I think we should approve that one specifically because the county should not be taking ownership of private lift stations, and so that language clarifies our position clearly, where right now it is not that clear.

Okay, so is there agreement on A3?

I'm just asking for consensus before we do.

At least we can pull that out of the section.

Yes, it did.

Yes, pull the 127 and approve that.

I think I like the idea of tabling it, but still strengthening that portion, so that sends a very clear signal to those that may have private lift stations today.

It sends a clear signal we're not gonna take it, but we still support them eventually.

Has that been our practice, or that's being discouraged by this statement?

You said we wouldn't take it anyway.

We wouldn't take or we wouldn't if they failed.

We're not.

I'm hearing we haven't taken that.

We have not taken any it would it would be a gratuity.

That would be our position is it would be a gratuity.

I don't know that I don't think that it requires for it to be codified, but it helps staff and it being able to point to something when people call us and say, hey, come help us.

Can you help us?

And so they're just saying we can, it's not a gratuity, it's all you know, it's also in the code, but I don't know that it's required to be in the code.

Okay, are there any other sections here that we do have agreement on?

I think we need to look at four A, because again, it's talking about um residential property.

And it specifically says that is not a homeowners association.

I know of no other construct.

I think B is it B is or I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Um B again is specifically stating that you know it says properties served by the lift station, so we're not denying it.

Um it has to then flow by gravity.

You're referring to B.

Um I'm sorry for B.

Oh, for it's it's section one of the four B for B4B.

Okay.

I was just trying to pull sections that I thought we could agree on.

Because it's because to me what we're not agreeing on right now is number two.

Yes, so 4B doesn't change anything, it's clarifying language, legal head advice that they felt like our language was not crystal clear, and that that would help to make sure that the requirement is crystal clear.

Wait a minute.

We aren't agreeing on B2.

You said number two or B2.

4B.

4B.

B4B 4B.

You're right.

And you're saying there's disagreement on B2.

A2.

No, A2.

Okay.

I think I think we're we're kind of stuck on A2.

Are we good with A1?

That's just striking.

Do we okay?

Now I'm confused.

I'm conf I'm I'm straight up.

A two.

Have we facilitated A2?

Have we facilitated a private company building a public lift station?

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So there's disagreement about A2.

There's agreement on A3.

I would I would recommend that if you're not gonna approve A2 that you also not approve A1.

Okay.

So we have A3 right now.

And then I've heard support for B4B.

And I this is where it gets to be a little bit more technical for me.

I think we need to start at B1 because essentially that one they're just saying which to that.

And again, this is only addressing private lift stations.

Private lift stations that serve a single property may be acceptable.

Just say it out loud, Commissioner Burrow.

Pardon, just say it out loud.

Uh say we table it and come back.

Leave it like it is with the director reviewing them and approving or denying.

Yes, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Sorry.

Uh I I would still agree with A three, but I think that's where it should stop and everything else be tabled.

Um that's per the water system director's suggestion to keep that in.

Right, but there is things that start in B that then go back to private lift stations that I think we need to walk through.

And again, no, because it's it's just clearly stating that if you currently have a private lift station, the county shall not accept ownership, correct, of that lift station.

So these are these are not new private lift stations, these are lift stations that are private and currently in place, and it clarifies that the county will not take ownership of those lift stations.

Am I correct, Judy?

That's correct.

Okay, yeah.

So this it's not a predicate of anything else.

It stands alone that we're just not gonna take it.

Right.

Okay.

Right now I have consensus on A3, and that's all I have consensus on for tonight.

Commissioner Burl suggested that we come back and table it.

I would suggest that we do that.

We've had a lot of discussion on this outside of here in work sessions.

This is not a very easy section to absorb, but I do think that that at least helps with the issues that we have of the private lift stations that have challenges.

Whoever owns those private lift stations needs to take ownership of their repair and that it's not going to go to the county.

All right, Commissioner, so I'm prepared to make a motion that we approve section 122-126A 3, and that we table the rest of section 122.

So I cut 126.

I'm just give me one second.

I just want to make sure I'm I guess because it's the stormwater utilities part of 122.

Just give me one second.

I just want to make sure I get to the end.

Okay, right.

Now we're gonna table 122 dash 126, except for section A three subsection A3.

Second, okay.

Chair chair's table, I don't think is it is a term for us to be able to use.

I mean, you're you're just withdrawing it from consideration for the next one.

That's what I mean code back.

Yeah, sir.

Do I need to I think we understand that if there's okay if the board understands that by our clerks?

Okay, okay.

Withdraw um formally withdrawing from consideration section 122-126, except for subsection A three, the county shall not accept ownership of private lift stations.

And with that, if it if it would pass, since there's not two, two is eliminated, so now that three would actually become number two.

So I'm sorry, I'm I'm reading and I'm not listening to one thing you were saying three becomes two's a new brand new proposal that's not that's not being passed.

Only three is so three would now become number two.

What he said it'll just move up.

That's part of the motion.

Okay, is there does your second still remain?

Okay, is there any discussion?

All right, we're gonna call the question.

The motion carries five zero.

Thank you, commissioners.

We all agreed.

Okay, we're gonna go to the part part of the night, which is the stormwater utility, chair chairwoman.

We do have some other code amendments in section one in chapter 122 that are not related okay to stormwater.

So those would be the remainder of the code amendments and chapter 122 utilities, article two water and wastewater systems.

I see 122-130, unless you're going to a section beforehand.

There's there's several in 122.

There's 12257, 1224.

Okay.

So I think the easiest thing would be probably a motion that just um adopts the remaining proposed amendments in chapter 122, article two.

Yeah, article two, yes.

Okay, and the stormwater utility begins at another article.

Yes, okay.

So moved as presented.

Second, all right.

Is there any further discussion?

Okay, we'll call the question.

The motion carries five zero.

Thank you, Judy.

Now we're getting to the stormwater utility.

A lot of robust discussion.

I'm just gonna take whoever has questions or comments, and then we'll go from there.

And what is gonna be page there?

Well, yeah, definitions begin on 108.

Chairwoman, there are some amendments that are related to stormwater, but not related to the utility.

So I don't know if we want to start with some of those.

That's gonna be easier.

Give me one second.

I have sections here 83.

So yes, uh 5083.

So we have um amendments related to stormwater facilities and maintenance that would be section 50-11, section 50-11, and then chapter 83.

Okay, commissioners, do you need time to review those sections?

I'm fine 50 50, then 83.

And chapter chapter 83 is the nuisance chapter.

We gotta do 54.

Why don't we?

These are a lot of different sections.

I would feel more comfortable if we took it by chapter instead of doing multiple.

The issue is that if you we're moving nuisance language from one chapter to the other.

So if you don't approve the the thank you, what's in 50, and you approve what's in 83?

That's a problem, and then the other way around.

It's it's if you you don't want to strike it from 50 and then not add it to 83.

Right.

So do you so you're suggesting we do both at the same time?

Yes, I would I would suggest that you do section 511, section 5112, and chapter 83 together.

Oh, 112.

I don't have section 112 here, Judy.

Well, do I have it written down wrong?

Page 32 section.

I have 5083 110.

Is it 110?

Oh section 50-112.

Oh, 50-112.

Oh, okay, that meant chapter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is the part of the code we have to amend in order to implement the stormwater utility fee.

No, no, ma'am.

So this is gonna this this is this is separate from the fee.

This is about how we handle um maintenance of stormwater facilities today, and we're moving some of these requirements.

We're cleaning up the nuisance language to move it into the nuisance chapter, but this is completely separate from whether or not a stormwater fee is approved.

Okay, so what's the section of code that has to be changed to do that?

That would be our chapter 122, article three is the stormwater utility chapter and sections.

And we already approved that.

Judy, I no, we haven't gotten to that yet.

We did article two, we haven't done article three.

Judy, can I just say we're gonna approve chapter 50 as opposed to saying subsection 112?

There's a lot of subsections in 50.

Uh there are um there are some there are some chapters in 50 that also address detention ponds.

So I didn't know if you wanted to take the detention ponds.

I thought we would do the nuisance language and then detention ponds, um, then the rest of 50, and then and then look at the stormwater utility.

Okay, are you comfortable, commissioners moving forward as Judy just stated and take it by subject area versus chapter subsection?

I mean that sounds clear, just gonna help to help walk us through the book.

Okay, so tell us the first subsection was with respect to stormwater maintenance.

If you want to go to 112, so the the chapters related to stormwater maintenance and the nuisance language would be um chapter 50, yes, so section section 50-111, section 50-112, and then all of the amendments in chapter 83.

Okay, 111, 112, and chapter 83.

And I'm just gonna ask you, did we not address section 50-71?

Oh, there's no change.

Yes, there's a change under 71, 102.

Yes, I was gonna address those there the ones that aren't related to detention ponds or to um or to the nuisance.

I was gonna do those as a bank okay after after we handled those two kind of perfect topics.

Okay, you help walk us through that.

Okay, so um Judy state that again, and then I'm going to move as you present it.

Okay, I recommend that the board adopt the proposed amendments related um to maintenance of stormwater facilities and nuisances in section 50-11, section 50-112, and chapter 83.

So moved as presented.

Second, is there any discussion?

Call the question the motion carries 5-0.

Okay, yes.

No new detention ponds.

That was the next group.

I was gonna next this next, yes.

So next, I would recommend that the board adopt the proposed amendments related to not accepting ownership of detention ponds and residential subdivisions in section 50-130 and chapter 110.

70-130 and 110.

Okay.

So move.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Call the questions.

We're on a roll now.

The motion carries.

I was getting right.

Okay.

I'm gonna um add to my time.

Okay.

Prediction.

All right, please.

Next, I'd like to recommend that the board adopt the proposed the proposed amendments.

Um in the remaining I'm sorry, adopt the remaining proposed amendments to chapter 50.

This includes but is not limited to stormwater management assessment districts and trout streams.

All right, so moved.

Second.

Is there any discussion?

Which chapter?

The remaining chapters that we didn't include in the middle of the year.

Chapter 50.

So the beginning, the definition.

And there's some other purposes and intent.

Okay.

Manage stormwater management standards.

There's general it's general language.

General cleanup.

Yes.

You all this is just chapter 50.

All right.

The rest of it.

I agree.

It's really just general clip.

It's not anything but I don't see anything material.

I see general cleanup of language unless you want to share anything else.

Really, the most um substantial thing in there is kind of the cleanup of the um stormwater assessment districts.

Chapter 50, so section 50-11.

It's gonna be on page 31.

Yes, okay.

That's all clear.

Okay.

Okay.

That's significant.

Is everybody okay with those sections?

All right.

Did we have a motion?

So moved as presented.

Is there a second?

Is there any discussion?

Again, the most material part is 50-11.

If anybody needs to look at that quickly as regarding the assessment districts, all right.

Call the question.

Okay, Commissioner Broll and Gamble are in opposition.

Okay.

And then we are now at the stormwater utility portion.

Can you help me get to the page, Judy?

So I yes, I I don't have it as it is in the code books with me.

I have section I have 108 109.

Yeah, so it begins at stormwater management article three definitions 108.

And this is the remaining portion of 122.

Let me back up.

Did we approve 122 outside of this initially?

Yes.

That's what I mean for okay.

Then yes, we're just starting at 108 to the rest of the code section of 122.

And this pertains to the stormwater utility.

And forgive me, they not be in the order of which they were asked.

Judy, can you help us understand how we came up with four dollars and seventy-five cents?

Sure.

So I think we have a chart from the work session that I did on October 28th.

That shows what that funding goes to.

So there's there's several different categories.

Um the first category is just what would the fee need to be to to meet our current budget, and so the fee for per equivalent residential unit just for our current budget would be two dollars and fifty-seven cents.

Um, and then so we have what the fee would be to add some funding for additional additional items.

The first one is additional positions and equipment.

Um to add uh 1.1 million dollars to our budget for that would raise the fee up to 287.

The next one's additional funding for contracted pipe repairs on residential property for if we add a million dollars to do a million dollars more a year than what we're doing today, because we already spend about three million dollars a year on um pipe repairs on residential property to add another million dollars to try to get caught up and stay caught up with the back um with the number of repairs we have.

The next is to um fund some open channel maintenance, the short distance downstream of county pipes and provide a limited amount of riprap um to property owners to help them with erosion issues, and if we have um added a million dollars in the budget for that, that would raise the fee up to three dollars and forty-three cents.

The next one is decrease lake storage volume purchase price.

We have a program to help private dam owners.

If they um will lower the permanent pool level in their in their lake to provide additional uh detention during storms, then we will help pay for that volume difference.

Um but we haven't had anybody take us up that in a long in a long time because what we offer right now is such a low amount, so we'd like to increase what we could offer for that.

So to add 200,000 funding for that would raise the fee up to three dollars and 49 cents.

The next one, the additional funding for existing um water system detention ponds.

We are not keeping up with the detention ponds that we own today.

So um to mow the ones that we have regularly, we need two million dollars, and that would raise the fee up to four dollars and five cents.

Next, funding for future regional projects.

We've done some regional projects in the past, we don't have any plan now, we don't have funding to look at that.

So we need to start saving so that we can have an assessment done to look at where there would be appropriate places to put in regional detention or retention facilities, and so to add a million dollars a year to start saving for that would raise the fee up to four dollars and thirty-three cents, and then the last item is to fund portion of stormwater pipe repairs in the right of way.

Um if we add 1.5 million dollars to that would raise the fee up to 475.

Um that is proposed.

Uh, DOT currently pays um for their drainage repairs in the right-of-way out of SPLOST.

I think um the current SPLOS is I think it's a little over 10 million dollars for the whole period, and they're spending three to four million dollars a year right now, so they do not have enough money funding through SPLOS to keep up with their repairs.

Okay, there was concerns that we just grabbed these numbers out of thin air.

So you're telling us how you got to 475.

Can you talk with us about how you even arrived to to these?

In fact, it's clear on if you just look at the table, you looked at the annual expense that's in that second column, and that helped you derive yes.

So we looked at the annual expense, and then we looked at um we have an analysis of how much impervious surface there is in unincorporated cob in the city of Mapleton.

So we know how much we have, so what would that fee have to be if we charged a certain amount for the square footage of impervious surface to get to these numbers?

Okay, so we did this analysis based on the amount of impervious surface in the in the county.

Okay, we've had a lot of discussion about using consultants, not using consultants in the county.

And how did you arrive to these numbers?

Did you do that internally?

Did we have additional support from a third party?

So we did this internally.

Um we did have some assistance from one person that works for a consultant in our office in our construction management services unit that works in our stormwater division and helps us out there.

So he works part-time through that.

He did help us with this sum.

We also we did hire an outside firm to actually do the impervious surface throughout the county.

So look at the GIS and determine what how much impervious surfaces on each property that was done by an outside vendor.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner, so do you have any related questions to that?

Okay, comment.

Okay, you can go ahead if you have another question.

Um, I I just wanted you, Judy, to address the water transfer because the thought is the money or the funding that's being transferred to that account would more than satisfy or meet the needs of this proposal.

So the the vast majority of the money that's being transferred is from water and sewer revenue.

So even if we if we eliminated the transfer of this year, I have estimated that only $300,000 of that $11.3 million is from stormwater revenue.

So if we eliminated it today, it would give us $300,000 extra year for stormwater.

And how does that compare to how much you need for stormwater annually?

Well, our current budget's $9.2 million, so we need $9.2 million just to do what we're what we're doing today.

So we need $9.2 million just to do what we're what we're doing today.

Okay.

Did you have another question, Commissioner Sheffield?

Um so to follow up on that, Judy, if the stormwater utility were to go into effect, the funds from the funds that are collected from the stormwater utility would be isolated.

Is that would it would be in a separate account?

That is correct.

Which means that those funds could not be subject to any type of transfer, or could they the way that the code language is proposed, the stormwater revenue could not be used for the trend, could not be transferred.

So right now, kind of as a secondary question, right now we're ever everyone in Cobb County is paying into stormwater.

They're either paying into their city stormwater utility or they're an unincorporated cob and they're paying on consumption or or Mapleton and they're paying on consumption.

So they're everyone right now is being charged stormwater, correct?

So this isn't a new fee, it's restructuring in order to isolate that into that account so it can be used specifically for stormwater maintenance.

That is correct.

So the typical cut residential customer in cob uses 5,000 gallons of water a month, and so that customer now is paying $2.24 a month for stormwater, and when the rates go up in January, we'd be paying $2.34 a month for stormwater under our current rate structure.

Okay, and and just for for clarification, once Cobb adopts a stormwater utility, the fee that is currently being paid will be removed, and everyone will pay the lower rate that the cities that have their own utility pay, and it would only be the 475.

So it's not an additive 475, it's replacing what's already being paid for stormwater.

That's correct.

Okay.

And just real quick too, because you mentioned it, I want I know it was brought up that the rates of stormwater, uh, the the rates of water have gone up.

I just want to make sure that I'm I'm accurate that we clarify that that's only cost that we've had to absorb or pass on because of the cost of water that we buy has gone up.

Well, other things have gone up as well.

So it also includes our cost of chemicals, biosols disposal, um, just general inflation costs, and the cost our capital improvement construction projects are going up.

So also funds capital with that increase.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify that yes, we're replacing what people already pay with stormwater with a new structure, but we're adding on additional services because the issue has been you're putting in a stormwater utility.

If you wanted to just really get to what people are doing today, we would stop at that 9.2 million.

But if we put this in place, residents have said we want we want something for that stormwater utility, and businesses have said we want something for that stormwater utility if you're gonna make us pay for it.

So there was consideration for these additional services that will allow us to do more than we can do today.

I just don't want to give residents the impression that their bill is going to just be offset and there won't be any increase.

There will be some increase to allow us to do more, but now we have a better structure to more fairly allow us to do more, and to just more fairly even do what we're doing today, because it's not fair to charge stormwater based off of consumption, it's just not right.

You said something about 224 and 234 existing.

So the typical residential customer in cob uses 5,000 gallons of month of water and sewer a month.

So that's what that typical residential customer is paying currently per month for stormwater.

So if they use more water, they pay more.

If they use less water, they pay less, but that's kind of a typical and 234.

$2.34 is what the typical customer will be paying for stormwater January 1st.

Come January with the new rate.

Versus $2.24.

Okay.

Judy, there were comments around mapping the current system to find out where pipes are.

Can you address that?

Certainly be happy to.

So we do have all the all of the stormwater structures mapped in Cobb County, unincorporated Cobb and City of Mapleton.

They're mapped, actually, we we went beyond what's required by the state, and we mapped both public and private lines.

Those were mapped, they've been mapped for years.

We continue to add them to RGIS when new development comes in.

So they are in RGIS.

When they were started mapping them years ago, what wasn't done is identifying what's public responsibility and what's private responsibility.

Okay.

So the the majority of pipes on a residential property, we do maintain.

So if they if it was put in the pipe was put in when the subdivision was developed by the developer when the roads went in and the sewer went in and the water went in, those pipes that went in with that, and they're shown, so they would be shown on the plat when they went in with that.

We do maintain those pipes.

Sometimes pipes were extended or put in after the subdivision was accepted.

So those pipes are not shown on the plat.

Those pipes we do not maintain on residential property.

Is there an effort underway to try to identify what is publicly our responsibility?

Yes, privately the rest.

So it will take quite a bit of time because to go through the whole county and pull up every residential property and then pull up the plat with that property and check what's on the plat versus what's what's in our mapping system will take quite some time.

We are in the process of doing that.

Do we have ability to do that on a case-by-case basis if something occurs than to just look at that one particular pipe?

So we do that now.

So if somebody calls us and they say that they're having a problem on their property, that's the first thing we do.

We pull up the GIS, we look at the GIS, and then we pull the plat and we look at the plat.

Okay.

There's been an assertion that there is no stormwater plan in place.

Do we have any plan that addresses our stormwater management?

So we do.

We have a um a plan that we had that we're required to submit to the state.

Um so we submitted our stormwater management plan that outlines our program and how we're going to comply with our MS4 permit to EPD in 2025.

We we submitted that and it has been approved by EPD.

Okay.

Right, it's going through to see what other significant.

Then there was a question about us having the legal authority to have a stormwater utility.

I don't that maybe a question for you or a county attorney.

Okay.

And stormwater utilities have been around for a number of years now.

I mean, most recently, the um they call it Homewood 2, which has come out of uh uh Clark, Athens Clark unified government that was first tested in 2013, and the Georgia Supreme Court said that this is a fee, not a tax, and they allowed it to move forward.

Um most recently the Georgia Supreme Court just just passed October of 2025 ruled again and what they refer to as Homewood 2, which was another challenge regarding the fee.

That's a fee rather than rather than a tax.

They affirmed their previous ruling, and and they and a lot of not all of the information, but a lot of what our code is based on is based upon not just homewood, but Judy and her team is on a really great job of looking at other ones that have gone through litigation and reuse of the language within our code section.

Okay, thank you.

And then finally, I want to share that a stormwater utility is not a panacea for all stormwater issues in the county.

It finally gives us funding to more robustly start to address these more systematically in ways that we could not before.

So all of our stormwater issues are not going to go away.

I think a comment was shared.

You know, we had opportunity to do this 20 years ago and perhaps address some things.

We we didn't start then, but we could start today to begin to address these needs, and someone said maybe the fees might go up.

I don't know if they will or won't, but I think we have the opportunity to begin to do something today with what we have, and we have a plan in place that says that we can begin to address these annual expenses in these service areas with the four dollar and seventy-five cent fee that's in place.

There's one last thing because I'm very sensitive to a number of the homeowners that talked about when new development comes, that's when they start having issues, and they were saying it's unfair to residents to have to shoulder what a developer is doing and these additional stormwater issues that they are causing for existing residents.

Can you talk through that?

Is there anything beyond what we can do today?

It becomes a one of the main issues that we have because we try to safeguard it, but yet we still have development.

Maybe I don't know if it's past development, new development that we're zoning, but we still have those stormwater issues.

So our requirements for new development actually exceed the state's minimum requirements for stormwater.

Um there's a state, there's a Georgia stormwater management manual that has requirements, and we actually go a little bit above that.

So we have very strong requirements, but it is a tough issue because when you add development, it it does impact runoff.

So there is detention, and we have strong detention requirements, but at the end of the day, there's always going to be the you limit the flow that can go out, so the flow level to only be a certain amount, but the total volume over time is going to be more.

So it's it is a difficult issue.

Yeah.

Thank you for sharing that.

Commissioners, I don't know if you have any other questions.

Those are the uh main questions that I highlighted.

Okay, not hearing it.

Oh, Commissioner Gambrell.

No, I I'm just gonna add on to this development standard in the stormwater, and everyone received an email, and the gentleman spoke back in 23 when we were considering this, and essentially a new development went to into his house.

Um offense to Judy's staff, but essentially they said, Well, this is the low point.

We're gonna put a 24-inch pipe here, and he can discharge a stormwater right into the back of the of his house.

He lives on a multi-acre track.

Now, thank goodness that he was working the developer, he reached out to me.

The developer was willing to redirect the stormwater, but there was no easement, there was nothing obtained by that developer nor the county to allow stormwater to flow across his property.

I have a similar story.

But now my backyard is slowly eroding away because of the development behind me.

So while I I hear this, I also have another development that used to be in floodplain, and they've now raised that property 12 to 15 feet.

I can guarantee you those existing older subdivisions that we keep wanting to blame for stormwater problems will more than likely be flooded the next major rain event we have to no effect of their own, but because our manual said, sure, go ahead, lift the property 15 feet, essentially dam up the water that used to flow there, which is going to throw it back on those existing properties.

So then we're just going to have more stories like we did with um was it was Mr.

and Mrs.

Smith where they had had the property damage.

So while I understand I agree with the constituents of you know there is no real plan here because the bottom line is we're going to continue to approve pipes discharging onto another property without a stormwater easement that's going to remain unchecked, that is just going to continue to exasperate the problem.

I also have an issue instead of charging our commercial properties a fee.

Why don't we make them get their stormwater detention facilities to work?

It's amazing how many detention ponds the water flows around.

I challenge everybody the next time it rains, go and watch these commercial developments.

The water's not flowing to the ponds.

Yes, we have inspectors go out and say, Oh, yep, they built the pond, it's about in the place where it should be.

But it's on the high point of the property, and the water runs around it.

So again, you're talking about overburdening our our system.

It's because these detention ponds that are supposed to collect the water to then slow down the flow aren't functioning as designed.

Okay.

So instead of the county collecting it, make the individual commercial property owners fix their detention pounds that aren't functioning as designed.

How do we get there?

How do we get there and still robustly address ongoing stormwater issues?

Well, I'm sure we've heard from many neighbors that have reported where upstream detention ponds aren't working.

Okay.

So until those are fixed, you're always going to have downstream issues.

And then again, the county approved a private detention pond behind us to discharge into our private lake.

So those 10 homeowners around that lake are now having to deal with the issues from the detention that the county approved to runoff.

Now remember, not all the water goes there anyways.

Okay.

But the water that does go there that's supposed to be piped, those homeowners are responsible for the damage that is now being done.

So you can't go back and make the 34 homeowners adjacent to us fix the detention pond because again the county approved the detention pond to drain into our lake, which then flows into Mud Creek, which then is going to continue to flood downstream and into South Cobb.

Do we so do we just accept do we just accept this?

Do we not see an opportunity of path forward to address some existing challenges if we have detention ponds that aren't working, if water is not flowing properly, and still not do something to address these issues that we know are still occurring.

I don't think those issues should happen, but I also think that knowing about it is one thing, putting policy in place or budget in place.

We approve a budget every year, we could approve funding to address those on a recurring basis.

Yeah, knowing is half the battle.

I appreciate you specifying those things.

So it's part of the um proposed positions is additional inspections to be able to go out and inspect more of these private ponds.

But the inspections aren't going to fix the problem.

And I guess where I get very frustrated is when the development adjacent to me was happening.

I went to the county.

I mean, I had pictures, I had documents, and I'm like going, hey, the water is flowing to me, and all they said is there's the detention pond.

So I can relate with a lot of these homeowners that have said pretty much the county has laughed at them or told them it's not their problem because I have lived through that.

Understand.

Now, thank goodness for Rob Hozak and the fact that I continue to stand at that podium, and Chairman Owens at the time got tired of listening to me, and that is when they came and ended up putting a swale just behind my house.

Now, while that took some of the water away, it didn't stop the water that was coming further up from still flowing through.

So I can't imagine the issues I would have today if they hadn't done that one small correction.

But again, I had to fight tooth and nail to get that done.

Yes.

So I can relate to these homeowners.

So, you know, is it a policy?

Is it a practice?

But again, even if we go out and inspect these detention ponds and say, you know what, the water's running around them.

What enforcement do we have to do to make the property owner correct it?

Because we signed off on that detention pond decades ago when that CO was issued.

Okay.

And again, I challenge you to go out and go to these commercial entities or even subdivisions and watch how the water flows around detention ponds.

Because I can almost guarantee you if the water went to the ponds, because remember, we don't design them to minimum standards, we design them to 110%.

Understand.

And if the ponds were functioning as design, we have a pretty good guess that we wouldn't be having the flooding we are today.

So this fee to me, yes, it's all good, it's gonna allow Judy to put in new pipes, but it is still not going to address the unchecked stormwater that is the most damaging and impacting to homeowners.

Thank you for sharing that.

Yes, Commissioner Allen.

I just want to state that I I understand and agree with everything Commissioner Campbell just said.

However, think we're in a position where the the question is not an either-or, it's more of a both end, and as chairwoman said, it's not the this isn't the silver bullet.

There's also a lot of work we have to do on being smart with new development.

Um not a dialogue with those in the audience.

I'm sorry.

But I will say the position of do nothing does not solve a problem.

Um the inspections may just be a first step, but it's a very needed first step to start thinking of how we can correct some of the things we have.

So when we talk about slow the flow and and how do we how do we do this?

We're trying to put in a mechanism to fund supporting our community differently and better, which is a completely different position than let's just do nothing and continue to talk about what our neighbors are going through.

To me, this creates a mechanism to start helping our neighbors that are having these issues, even though it may not be the end all, it is a start where doing nothing is just no longer an option.

Commissioner Shepard, and I you know, I I just want to add, you know, for the past I think two decades or even greater, there's been an effort to try and address stormwater, and here we are 20 plus years later, still trying to address this issue, and with some of the experiences we heard from both the audience and from Commissioner Gambrel, you know.

My only thought is if we had addressed it sooner, would they have been impacted in the way that they have been?

I I don't know.

Perhaps there would have been some minimal impact, but perhaps there would not have been any at all.

But if we don't do anything, then nothing will change, and we heard that shared earlier by um by by someone in the audience.

This is the first step.

Is there an opportunity for us to implement policy to address some of those issues that Gambrel and others uh brought up?

Oh, absolutely there is, and I would imagine that you know that we will address those issues, um, but not doing anything is not an option.

So let's just assume we don't do anything.

Um what type of impact are we looking at in the next five to six to seven years?

I remember the flooding in East Cobb just some years ago, and we had residents to speak at the commissioners' meeting, and they were very upset and rightfully so.

And even when we hosted the town hall in my district, there were some experiences shared that should not have been.

Um, and it is unfair to the homeowner.

So there's definitely an opportunity for us to do something, and I think that this is uh a start in the right direction because not doing anything is an option.

You know, on the one hand, we're asked to address the issue and fix the issue, and the county should be held accountable.

Well, this is the county trying to be accountable.

I mean, expenses are going up, you know, the money that we're bringing in is not sufficiently covering the expenses.

So something has to be done, and I think this is a good start.

Thank you.

Commissioner Burroughs.

I know I sound like a broken record, um, but I have been advocating to eliminate reduce and eventually eliminate the water transfer from day one in 15 years.

We got it down incrementally, and in 2016, when we um rolled back the millage to match the increase in the digest, the next year it went back up to 10 percent.

It was at six now, um with the last two chairs.

Uh we've started all over again, and now it is down to four.

But that's equivalent to about 11 million dollars.

And I know you keep saying that the amount that is being charged for stormwater would not cover um the amount that we're transferring out to the general fund, and I understand that, but had we not been doing that, I know it's legal, and I know it's been done since 1998 before any of us were here, but I know if we had not done that, we'd have a lot more money to be addressing all this now or for 20, the past 20 years.

If it was been it's been done since 98, and at that point, when it was at 10 percent, it was equivalent to about 21 million a year going out to the general fund.

So that would have been your 17 million plus.

So I just I can't justify any increase.

I've never voted for a water rate increase as long as we're transferring money out that's generated in water to the general fund.

I just can't.

So um I I do think that this is a step forward as far as making it a separate enterprise fund that can only be used.

The money generated can only be used for stormwater to cover these costs.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I do think that's a good positive for if this passes.

Thank you.

Um I don't like the way the um HOAs will be charged by impervious because that could be a great expense with the HOAs will have to pay monthly in addition to their a their fees for their amenities now.

They'll also be assessed to be able to cover um the HOA, and the the individual homeowners are already going to be paying the 475.

So I I have a problem with that.

Um, and I also think I don't want to say this is kicking the can down the road, but if this passes, I don't think it should start until 2027.

We've got a lot of other stuff going on next year, and um I think it's may hurt other things that we've got to pass, and I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I appreciate your comments, and I understand the sensitivity to the impact that this could have on businesses and planning next year.

My only concern is if we wait till 2027, we'll have to educate people about it right at the same time that they're voting on the next law.

So they're going to be hearing about it concurrent with considering you know us renewing that program.

So that's my only concern.

And I think that if they have this runway from this year, we've been talking about this for the past two years, and there was a comment made.

I didn't mention it in my 2023 remarks, but I sure enough did mention it in in this year's remarks about the um storm water utilities.

So I think people know that this was brewing behind the scenes, and I'm I'm hoping that they've had they will have enough runway to move that forward.

And I do appreciate the fact that we finally pull this out of our water and sewer rates and appreciate you acknowledging that with that commissioners.

If there are no other comments, I'm gonna call the question.

Oh, I'm sorry, I don't have a motion.

Sorry, we've been here so long.

Yes, yes, Judy.

Can you state the motion and then I will um move as presented?

Okay, I recommend that the board adopt the proposed amendments to chapter 122 utilities article three stormwater management revised as follows.

I do have some revisions from some comments that we've received in the last couple of days.

Okay, revised section 122- can you put these on the slide?

Yes, if you could put the slide slide.

I have a slide.

I have gave the board members a hard copy, but I also have a slide.

Um revised section 122-304 B1, which defines the water system stormwater facility maintenance responsibilities to read as that are located in drainage easements dedicated to the public on single family residential property not owned by a homeowners association, and are shown on the recorded subdivision final plat, except that the county does not maintain open channels outside the public water influence zone, bodies of water with a permanent pool level and or any associated dam or any systems or facilities that are located in a development with private streets, and add section 122-304 B6 to read as that are located in a recorded drainage easement in an instrument other than a platicated to and expressly accepted by the county.

So moved.

Okay, I'm just reading what she sent me.

I'm sorry, I'm just I've heard you're just looking at the text.

Thank you.

So moved as presented.

Second, are there any comments or questions?

Call the question.

The motion carries three two.

Thank you so much, commissioners.

Thank you, Judy.

With that, I believe.

Are we done with code amendments, Jessica?

Or do we have any Okay?

We we have a whole board of commissioners meeting Jurassic.

I want to be we have we have public comments.

No, I mean, yes, but yes, mate.

Yes.

All right.

So why don't we go ahead and take a recess for a couple of minutes while people clear the room and then we'll resume the other one?

I mean, I'm already sitting on this.

We're not once you turn your mic on.

Um just stuff with me.

Good evening and welcome back to our Cobb County Board of Commissioners regular meeting this November 20th, 2025.

We have concluded our public hearing, and now our at our first public comment, and I will turn things over to our county attorney.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

As the board provides the podium for public comment, it's appropriate to review some of those related meeting meeting rules.

Please state your name and if you're speaking on behalf of an organization.

All comments should be made to the commission as a body and addressed through the chair.

Public comment is not a dialogue with the board, but an opportunity for speakers to provide their comments to the board.

Comments should not be slanderous.

The board encourages, regardless of the topic for the audience to be respectful and courteous of all the speakers.

Everyone attending this meeting should give others both the right to listen and to be heard by treating each other with civility.

Statements made during the public comment portion do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the board or the administration of Cobb County government.

And there's a timer on the podium for your three minutes.

Women should be more coordinated.

So that's what goes back to stormwater.

Athens sued in 2013, and it went all the way.

Well, they sued short of that, but in 2013 it went all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court, and the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that it is not a tax, that it is a fee, and it can be charged.

And as I've said earlier, I'm not against a stormwater fee.

I'm just against how you guys are doing it.

But you guys have voted to implement it.

I get that.

Um, and I'm hoping that it works, but I I'm I just don't think that it will, because I don't think that it's gonna be enough money to cover the amount of people in Cobb County.

Y'all got almost 800,000 people and growing.

And if you think that $4 and 53 cents per household is gonna cover storm water, then your next big storm you're gonna find out.

I mean, Commissioner Sheffield, you approve the development at the corner of Mapleton Parkway and South Gordon Road.

I need you to go by there and look at it.

I need you to go look at what they've done that they say I I've seen, I haven't seen a dependent a detention pond or a retention pond there, and they've stacked bricks up along the side of South Gordon, and it's uphill, so when the water runs, it's gonna run downhill, and those people's homes are gonna be flooded.

And guess what?

Almost every townhome in there is sold.

I walk through there every other day, but I need you to go take a look at it because somebody needed to be a little bit more.

That's not the feature.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Jennifer Ragsdale, Mr.

Harfoot.

Hello, my name's Craig Harfoot, and I'm very disappointed.

This wasn't ready.

I mean, all and it's all on residential, and you figured out it's gonna be uh arbitrary 475 when you used to talk about how much impervious surface it was anyway.

So, where's the fee on the airport imperious surface?

Where's the fee on all the commercial properties?

You didn't show a nickel coming in from that.

What's up with that?

You're gonna charge all the little people first, you're trying to create enough stress to make a bunch of homes go vacant, so your buddy Mike Parrish that came up there all smiling because you passed it.

You know, the lift station, come on.

The one thing that Judy said, you got to put the infrastructure in if you're gonna do it.

South Cobb is at the bottom of the hill.

You built God when I'm in the when your development happened, they had built this sewer tunnel and they jacked up our fees real high on stormwater and sewage and all that stuff just to drill this thing, and it goes to the corals plant.

Well, that's uphill from South Cobb and all this area.

Yeah, they just dumped everything in this granite tunnel, it goes down there, and that you guys are up there without a clue that you can, you don't even know where to tell the developers that you got gravity.

If she can't tell them this is where you can build and use what we got, and they want to build something somewhere else that it won't work, and your code's written the way it is, it's insane.

Totally insane.

And um, you know, all these years, you know, where I I live on high ground.

There's federal land across from me in St.

Leon's.

Well, they traded it.

They built all these big houses, they put a lift station in down there.

I don't know if it's covered by you or them, but they pump it up to the driveway and then it goes all the way down to little Willio lift station.

Well, then they made a deal, or it can go over to the Willie Fulton County plant.

And um, you know, if it fails, they let it go there.

Well, the Willie O plants always dumping sewage in the river.

It stinks.

It's Fulton County, it's right next door.

It's not a half mile from the lift station.

But anyway, you know, you have not made a plan.

You don't even have the funds to make a plan.

And let the all the people that have the problems make videos like I made and I sent to you, and I don't know that you bother to watch them, but there's gonna be where you get all the information, Mr.

Mr.

Harfoot, your time's expired.

Dave Morgan, Steve Cox, Susan Struffan.

That's it.

Good evening.

I wanted to uh follow up on the notice that I sent to you.

Included with it is uh a list of people who had signed also, but it's just a list of names and the dates.

I had given that to Pamela and uh want that put on the record, and uh I've had a subdivision that has tennis courts and such, so uh I don't know how much that increase is going to be, but really the issue is the mismanagement of money, and I'm thankful to you, Joanne, for talking about there should be no reason that you would take the money out just because you could that that should have been a rule changed long time ago to not take that money out, and so you've created the problem, you've created the problem, and now you're coming back to the homeowners, and you're not even supposed to infringe on our private rights, and our homes and our property are our private rights.

Your purpose is to protect our private rights, not rob us, and I thank you also, Kelly, for you sharing that you are one that's had the very problem that so many others have talked about.

I'm fortunate that I'm halfway down the hill, but we had that issue, we had to pay for it to be fixed uh years ago.

So I just don't think you're going to manage the money properly.

I think you'll find some other way to abuse rather than fix because you've had 20 years and you haven't fixed it.

Thank you.

There's no other speakers, all right.

That concludes our public comment, and we are now at our consent agenda.

The matters on consent are voted on in bank, and I believe we were supposed to have an add-on.

Are we supposed to mind this?

I'm seeing, I think I have it.

Okay, I think I have three right here.

I'm missing.

Um here it is.

No, good question.

No, excuse me.

Yes, we do have four add-ons to the consent agenda.

Commissioners, I will make a motion that we first addenda item number 36, which is to authorize application to the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security for FIFA counter unmanned aircraft system grant to enhance the county's ability to detect, assess, and mitigate unauthorized drone activity associated with the 2026 FIFA World Cup and other large-scale special events.

Is there a second to add that to consent?

All right, is there any?

That's okay.

Any comments or questions?

We'll call the question.

The motion carries 5-0.

Commissioners, I also move that we add agenda item number 37 to consent, which again is to request authorization to apply for the U.S.

Department of Homeland Securities, FIFA World Cup grant program to support public safety and emergency preparedness efforts associated with the 2026 FIFA World Cup second.

All right, we have a second.

Is there any additional discussion?

Call the question.

Commissioners, I move that we add agenda item number 38, which is to authorize the application for an acceptance of grant funding under the fiscal year 25 law enforcement mental health and wellness act.

Second all right, is there any discussion?

Call the question.

The motion carries 50.

And commissioners, I move that we authorize settlement of workers' compensation claim on behalf of We Clef Lewis.

Is there a second?

Second.

Is there any further discussion?

Call the question.

The motion carries five zero.

Commissioners, I would like to note that there have been matters pulled from consent, which include parks item excuse me, parks item number 10.

I have 10 here.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Okay.

And this is regarding the five parcels under parks.

And then we have economic development item number 17 pertaining to economic incentives.

Commissioners, are anybody else observing any changes needed to the consent agenda or for our clerk?

Oh, yes, Commissioner Gamble.

Um I'd like to pull item number seven, but um, given the time of night, I don't know if we want to have discussion or if we just want to pull it and have it for the next meeting.

Um, why don't we just pull it from consent for now?

Kind of gets see where discussion goes.

Okay, is there anything else?

Pam, did I catch everything?

Oh, Angela?

Thank you.

With that, commissioners, I move that we approve the consent.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

No, I have to do discussion after you move the question for consent.

I didn't know you had something else to add.

With that, I'm gonna continue um the motion.

I'm gonna continue with my motion, which is to approve the consent agenda as it has been revised, noting that we have withdrawn agenda items 10 and 17 from the agenda, and that we are pulling agenda item number seven under transportation from the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

Is there any further discussion?

Yes, ma'am.

Um I'm opposed to number 15.

Okay.

Moving to code enforcement of first two planners.

Okay, so we're gonna note Commissioner Borough Burl's opposition to 15.

And can I ask why 17 was pulled?

I didn't hear that that was gonna be pulled.

Pardon me, it was pulled in my request.

It's in his district.

Yeah, I I'd ask for it to be okay.

Thank you.

I didn't hear that till just now.

Oh, okay.

Okay, that's all I have.

All right, any other discussion?

All right, we'll call the question.

The motion carries five zero, and again, observing that we poll number seven and noting commissioners Burl's um opposition to agenda item number 15.

That will then take us to true.

Still here.

That will now take us to the item that we just pulled from consent, which is agenda item number seven.

The uh item number good evening, chairman, commissioners, county manager, Drew Wrestler DOT.

The item that was uh pulled from consent number seven, um, that item is to recommend the board of commissioners authorized rate adjustments for streetlight districts street light district monthly service charges effective January 1st, 2026.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Garamble.

Did you have any questions or comments regarding that?

Um, yes, I've um been having a lot of discussions with um Bill Vulkman today, and I'm not sure if he's still here.

He's here he is still here.

Um, however, I haven't been able to go through all the emails, but um part of my concerns is um the way we're doing this.

Um, again, I don't have all the details in front of me, but essentially um this fee is covering four positions within the county, and to me, this this street light fee is just supposed to be a pass through of what Georgia Power COBEMC charge us.

So the fact that we have four engineers on that one for each of the districts.

So the fact that we have four engineers on that one for each of the districts I think that's what Bill I think that's what Bill sent to me today.

Like I said, I haven't pulled up all that information.

But I don't know if this if the board remembers, but in 2018, the what the rate was reduced, and then we actually paused the rate for it was five or six months because we had built up such a reserve.

So I was a little surprised that we're now running at a deficit, and I understand rates are going up, but the amount the rates are going up compared to the fee that's being increased.

It was like 15, but this is almost a 30 percent increase.

And um I kind of find it hard to believe we burned through the reserve as quickly as we did.

Um, but then if part of that fee is covering um positions, those positions are already covered in our budget.

So there were just a lot of things that I was having problems with, and again, because of other issues today, I haven't had conversations with Drew or Bill Volkman on this.

I I'd be glad to give an overview if that would be helpful of the positions, the structure of the uh of the program.

So um, so some of the dates uh absolutely correct, and and some of those precede my time.

But since since I've been in position, the streetlight district uh fee is a fee charged on streetlight districts that just funds those um those activities within those districts.

Now that includes the the primary, the SLD one, which is the the largest, those are neighborhood streetlight districts.

Um additionally, uh within here, and and some of these fee adjustments are for the uh the CID streetlight districts.

So Town Center and Cumberland each have enhanced streetlight districts that have funding just for those property owners within those those CIDs that that fund the lights again just within those CIDs.

And so there are there are four staff members, they're not all engineers.

Actually, there's only one engineer within that group.

The four staff members that that manage the streetlight program, one is the the overall streetlight manager.

Um, there is an engineer one who is uh charged with uh design of of projects.

So as there are uh new streetlight districts or modifications or uh things going on in some of the CID strail districts that that we have an engineer, we have a GIS manager.

There are tens of thousands.

I don't have the the number in front of me, but tens of thousands of lights across the county.

So they manage the GIS layer of of those districts.

Um, and then there is an accountant um that that manages the the expense and revenue within those.

Um but the vast majority of of revenue out outside of those four positions, all of the revenue goes back into paying for those lights.

Um the majority of our lights are Georgia Power, uh, and then COBMC and then some of the other providers throughout uh Georgia Power specifically, their rates just since 2023 have gone up depending and it and it's very dependent on the type of light has have gone up between 24 and 32 percent over over that that time frame.

Um, our fund balance uh but in January of 2024 was 2.74 million dollars in August of 2025 was 1.42 million dollars to the the point of the um the fund balance has gone down because we're operating at a at a net deficit month over month because of those those charges and so what is proposed here we we have done and historically that fund balance has been very healthy and have had to do uh rate holidays in order to burn funds down so that we weren't building up an unnecessary amount of funds because it those funds can only be used for streetlight district purposes.

Um so the item here um because of those power charges, those those lease power charges have gone uh gone up on us and and have driven those those costs down, and and we are operating at a monthly deficit.

Um it will uh require in order to be able to keep those lights on very very soon.

We're recommending January 1st here.

Um, there's a little bit of time after that, but there's not much if if we don't adjust rates soon, we will have to we we will go red in in that fund.

Well, and and this is where I'm struggling because according to Bill Volkman, we actually went in the red in 2024 by 294,000, and then in 2025 so far 64,000.

Yes, so and have used fund balance to do that.

I'm sorry, I didn't so we've been using fund balance.

That's right.

Burning down fund balance in the monthly deficit.

And I guess this kind of goes back to I I kind of find it hard to believe we we've got a fund balance that we've been burning down through because again we um you know put the moratorium because we were over collecting funds, but I have more questions.

Let me find that email.

Okay.

Do any other while Commissioner Gamble's looking for more information?

Commissioner Burrow.

Drew, when this was when we separated out the street light fund from the general fund, because the general fund was subsidizing it, and then we um broke it out separate.

Um did that include positions at that time it did the positions are within that fund, so the board would have approved that.

I assume it was consistent with that timing.

Okay, so they've been there all along.

Yes, we we have not transferred positions into that fund.

Okay.

Well, we approved it right like that.

And so I know I believe just recently we we approved three or four street light districts, but how many do we average a year that we approve?

It in terms of new so the three or four new streetlight districts, I would have to go back and look.

Um, because there's two different ways that we get a new streetlight districts.

There's the petition process that comes before the board of commissioners.

There's another process that the board does not necessarily see, and that when a new development new subdivision comes in, the developer has the ability by code to build those streetlights that build the roadways out, build streetlights, and then uh turn those streetlights over to the county, at which point that neighborhood, that new neighborhood becomes a uh a rate-paying streetlight district.

So and for those new installation periods, our new installation, are we still charging them for a three-year period?

So the the three-year period, so uh again the two different paths.

So when a developer builds a new subdivision that has street lights within it, the developer covers that upfront capital costs, and then when they turn it over to the to us, there's a that transition process includes whoever the power provider is, let's say Georgia Power.

As they turn it over to us, they say, Hey, George Power, you now need to charge for for these new street lights charge to the county for that.

So that acceptance, that three-party acceptance process happens.

There's no capital funding there.

When there is a petition process, there is a three-year six dollar a month available to that petition process.

So neighborhood comes to us says we'd love to have street lights.

And so we are our engineer does a design within that looks at the photometrics of how many what's the spacing needed for where those polls go.

They design out that that neighborhood, they take that back and they say, Hey, there's gonna need to be seven new polls, six lights can be co-located on existing utility polls.

Those seven new polls come at a cost of however many thousand dollars, and then um up to the code allows for up to three years, six dollars a month within that district for the capital costs.

Um, anything above and beyond that, the neighborhood is expected is required by code to come out of pocket for that.

So it's just for that upfront capital on a petition process that that three-year period is applicable.

So I'm not seeing that upfront capital costs being adjusted on this fee schedule.

That's correct.

That would that would take a code amount.

That's a separate code policy.

This is just for the the operating fees for existing lights as they exist today.

As those costs have gone up, um to that other question, because presumably to the question the if the cost of power has gone up, the cost of capital has gone up too.

And you're you're absolutely right there.

Um, and and the way that that has gone is as that capital the the amount that they can pay through their streetlight district fee to cover that capital is is capped currently.

Um it could be adjusted, but as that cost has gone up, the neighborhood is expected to pay more up front.

So they that whatever that delta is, the neighborhood is responsible for the delta above and beyond what can be collected for that three-year period.

And who does that billing?

That all of our billing goes through Cobwater.

And so Cobb Water would know that those homeowners would need the additional fee.

So and that's part of the coordination that our staff covers is working through that that process with with Cobwater billing on making sure that the the correct parcels are billed initially at the correct amount.

So it'd be the 380 plus the six or the four plus the six for for however long, and then they track at the end of that.

These parcels have met their time frame.

It needs to drop back down to the 380 or $4 rate that's proposed here.

And is that communicated to the homeowners before they have the street lights put in when they petition for the street lights?

That's all part of the petition process.

So we we tell them, hey, if if approved, there's an upfront fee of X, which covers the Delta, a monthly fee that will be 380 plus six for the three-year period, after which time it would go down to the regular rate, which again currently is 380 proposed to be $4.

And then how can you account for the billing on the water bill for all the property owners who aren't on Cobb Water?