DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Operations Committee Meeting - February 17, 2026
DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Operations Committee Meeting - February 17, 2026
The DeKalb County Board of Commissioners Operations Committee met on February 17, 2026, to discuss proposed changes to the county's organizational act regarding budget control, and to consider several contract approvals, including multiple items for voter registration and elections. The meeting featured extensive debate on Section 19 of the charter review recommendations, focusing on the roles of the CEO and commission in budget preparation and presentation. The committee approved several contract change orders and extensions, while deferring further charter review discussion due to time constraints.
Public Comments & Testimony
- During the discussion on Section 19, a member of the Charter Review Commission (CRC) in the audience attempted to provide input on the intent of the recommendations but was not recognized by the chair. The individual continued to speak without recognition, leading to a disruption. The chair called for the person to be escorted out, and the meeting continued without further testimony from the CRC member.
Discussion Items
- Charter Review – Section 19 (Budget Control of Expenditures): The committee reviewed proposed changes to Section 19 of the DeKalb County organizational act. Key points of discussion included:
- Budget Presentation and Approval Dates: The proposed language set October 1st as the budget presentation date and December 31st as the approval date. CFO CJ recommended shifting these to November 1st and January 31st respectively, to allow more time for preparation and to avoid holiday conflicts. The committee generally agreed to this adjustment, with the understanding that in an election year, the approval date could be extended to January 15th. No formal vote was taken on this date change during the discussion.
- Manner of Budget Presentation: The proposed language stated "the commission may specify the manner in which the budget report to the commission is to be prepared, presented, and supported with documentation." Several commissioners (including Chair, Commissioner Bolton, Commissioner Davis Johnson) opposed this language, arguing it blurred executive and legislative powers and would require a referendum to change if it allowed the commission to direct the CEO. Commissioner Terry expressed support for the language, explaining that the CRC intended to ensure the commission receives a detailed budget, not a "shell" budget. After extensive debate, the chair suggested moving on to other items and returning to this topic later. The committee did not reach consensus on the language and deferred further discussion.
- Level of Detail and Uniform Presentation: Commissioners discussed the need for a more uniform and digestible budget presentation. Commissioner Bolton suggested wordsmithing the language to require a unified presentation rather than directing content, which the county attorney indicated would likely not infringe on CEO powers. Staff noted ongoing improvements through the OpenGov system and expressed openness to suggestions. No decision was made.
- Approved Agenda Items (Multiple Contracts): The committee approved several contract change orders and new awards with little to no opposition. These are detailed under Key Outcomes.
Key Outcomes
- Approved Contracts (all by voice vote, all in favor unless noted):
- 25-1661 (InQuest Maintenance): Change order to contract 1365939 for annual hosting, maintenance, and support of inQuest software for the Department of Watershed Management. Approved for $7,550,000 (unanimous).
- 25-1831 (AV Equipment Maintenance): Sole source maintenance contract for audio/video equipment in courtrooms, conference rooms, and Maloof Auditorium. Awarded to BIS Digital Ink for $266,581.23 (unanimous).
- 26-010 (ProjectDocs Software): Change order for continued support, maintenance, and training of ProjectDocs software for Planning and Sustainability. Awarded to Above Software Corporation for $134,352 (unanimous).
- 26-0359 (Dependent Care Reimbursement Policy): Amendment to add an application form and correct scrivener's errors. Approved with one vote in opposition (Commissioner Terry). The item passed.
- 26-012 (Auction Services): Low bid award for auction services for surplus property. Awarded to Equaline Auction Group with an 8% fee. Substitute motion passed (unanimous).
- 26-0131 (Truck Rental for Elections): Emergency change order to rent trucks for transporting election equipment. Awarded to Writer Truck Transportation for $45,000 (unanimous).
- 26-0134 (Mail Ballot Packages): Emergency change order for vote-by-mail packages. Awarded to Fort Orange Press for $10,000 (unanimous).
- 26-0179 (Integrated Communications): Emergency change order for voter education/engagement. Awarded to Profile Marketing and Public Relations for $32,000 (unanimous).
- 26-0186 (Commercial Mover for Equipment): Change order for moving services for election equipment. Awarded to Atlanta Peach Movers for term extension only (unanimous).
- 26-0193 (Emergency Ballot Printing): Change order for printing emergency ballots. Awarded to Tatnall Ballot Solutions for term extension through December 31, 2026 (unanimous).
- Charter Review Discussion Deferred: Due to time constraints, the committee did not complete discussion on Section 19 or other charter review items. It was agreed to continue at a future meeting.
- Voter Registration Budget: Commissioner Bolton expressed a desire to hear the voter registration budget before the full board vote the following Thursday. Director Smith was not scheduled to present the budget at this meeting.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, Commissioners. Yes, we're printing a couple copies of the memo now. We're printing a couple copies of the memo now. Um the next section was section 16. We have one, two, three, four, five, six left to get through in this section. Yes, ma'am. Um, section 19 budgeting control of expenditures. Um, in this section, the language clarified that the CEO serves as the budget officer of the county and may specify the manner in which the budget is presented to the BOC may specify the manner in which the budget is presented to them. Um the changes, if this allows the BOC to direct the CEO in the preparation and presentation of the budget, then it changes the powers and will require state action. Um Madam CEO does not support this change as it blurs the line between the legislative and executive powers. Um the budget will be prepared in accordance with the standards established by the governing government finance office officers association. Okay, yeah, so um, you know, I I don't think that we should be able to do that. I think that we've said we've already changed uh when the budget will be presented to us, but as to how it is presented, I think that that should be left to the CEO's office, but we'll like comments. I know that you're gonna comment, but we'll let comments from our commission, I mean not uh committee member, yeah. John, you said that we're gonna be we're in section 16. I thought we left off on 17. No, we are on section 19. Oh 19. Yes, sir. There will be page 14 in the memo, page 36 of the red line if you have a copy of that. Um the specific language added speaks to an October 1st uh presentation of the proposed budget, and it adds language that the commission may specify the manner in which the budget report to the commissioners is prepared, presented, and supported with documentation. Other new language in section C upon submitting the budget report to the commission, the budget officer shall give notice to the public regarding the availability of the budget report and the schedule of any public hearings required by OCGA 36-81-1 as now or hereafter amended. The budget office shall also cause to be published in the official organ of the CAB County a summary of the proposed budget, the summary and the entirety of the budget shall be posted on the county website. And I believe that these are language clarifications. Um there's some additional language in section C. December 31st, December 31st, prior to the year and to which it pertains in the event the commission fails to approve the budget by December 31st. The budget presented by the CEO shall serve as the budget document for the county until a final budget is approved by the commission. Uh-huh. Haven't we already discussed that? Well, what we discussed in a previous section was changing the date of presentation to the board, but we did not settle on a date in which the budget must be approved by yes, ma'am. And and so what are we addressing right now? Well, this language would change that date to the October 1st. It would change the presentation, the presentation date to October 1st, and then it would change the approval date to December 31st. It seems to also clarify language about the publishing of the budget on the county organ and the website, and it also has language about additional language regarding what happens if the board does not pass the budget. Okay. So let's deal with these dates. And then we'll go back to the next. And you want to speak to that? Yes. CJ. I may. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I believe it was in November. There was a memo that I had drafted that was passed out to the committee members. And the suggested dates in that memo were for the budget we presented on November 1st and then adopted in January. And the reasoning behind that, one is to allow more time for the preparation of the budget. I think going from where we are currently in December to October really kind of compresses that schedule that we have, which we already have difficulty sometimes getting everything done by December. And then the other um main reason behind it is that we have to have public hearings on the budget. Having that in December along with the holidays, it just present difficulty scheduling. So what date in January would you recommend?
openpublica.com