Good afternoon and thank you so much for joining us.

I'm Ladina Bolton, our Super District 7 Commissioner and Deputy Presiding Officer.

I'm also the chair of the ERPS Committee, Employee Relations and Public Safety.

Serving on this committee with me as well are our presiding officer, Commissioner Shakira Johnson, and Commissioner Marita Davis Johnson.

We're gonna go ahead and jump right into our agenda beginning with our minutes, item 2026 0324.

Had committee members had an opportunity to review the February 3rd minutes.

Yes, ma'am.

At this time I move to approve item 2026-0324.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries recommendation for approval.

Under new agenda items, we have public safety.

Item 2026 0320.

All commission districts.

This is for 2023 Urban Area Security Initiative, the UIC grant in an amount not to exceed 382,606 and 81 cents.

How are you doing, Chief?

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

I'm doing well.

How about you?

Wonderful.

0320?

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

So this is our UASI Urban Area Security Initiative grant.

It's a continuing grant we get yearly.

And it says physical year 2023.

They run about two years slower when we're working them up.

So we just got this notification from the UASC director, Mr.

Bernard Coxton, earlier this month, and this is to execute the necessary documents for us to facilitate the requested equipment.

Most of it is for the police department.

A new bomb truck.

Uh for audio visual capability so that when the helicopter is in the air, we can downlink that information and get that video footage live feed as well as the uh aircraft service support and training.

Can you share a little bit about uh what you do or any credentials you have to meet that allow you guys to get this every year?

Uh yes, ma'am.

Well, we are you know DeCab County is uh one of five agencies that's part of UASI, which is uh the Urban Area Security Initiative.

It's us, Atlanta, Fulton, Clayton, and Cobb.

Um we participate together, and it is uh towards emergency management coordination.

It is federally funded UASC grant through the Atlanta Regional Commission that allows us all to have additional equipment for the Metro Atlanta area to assist in any emergency management needs, and we will share that equipment amongst the agencies should the need arise.

Wonderful.

Any questions or comments from committee members about this item?

Uh Commissioner Johnson.

I just had one question or clarification because I'm not remembering it.

What is EOD stand for?

Uh explosive ordinance disposal bombs.

Uh thank you.

No.

Commissioner Terry, Commissioner.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, Chief Pagri, are we gonna get any additional funds for the World Cup through UAC?

At this point, we have not received anything additional through UASI.

Uh and even with the FIFA World Cup meetings, we have another meeting Thursday.

It looks like right now all they're talking about is overtime reimbursement, but nothing toward equipment.

We did apply for a grant related to that, and all of the equipment was denied.

Okay, thank you.

What when was that?

Uh it was late last year that we submitted a request when they opened up the grants uh and they said they would revisit it, but everything was denied.

Right now they're looking at only overtime reimbursement.

Any other questions or comments about this item?

No, none.

Okay.

Do we have a motion?

Move to approve item 0320.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Motion carries for approval.

Next item is 2026 0322, all commission districts.

This is to amend the performance period for 2022 urban area security initiative grant in an amount not to exceed 10,073 and 24 cents.

Okay.

Yes, and this is in reference to it's it's the previous year grant, uh, grant year 2022 through UASI, and we're asking for the extension only based on the fact that when the federal government closed for several months and they closed all the grant funding, it's just making up those months and keeping in alignment.

And I believe we have everything related to this previously executed, but this just keeps all the paperwork in order for that uh time that the grant was closed.

Does it amend it through say the end of this year, or do we know what that is?

It is to it was actually uh to allow to August 15th, 2025 for receipt, but we have all the equipment.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions or comments from committee members?

No, ma'am.

Commissioners?

Uh move that this item be approved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries for recommendation of approval.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We are going to move to public safety animal enforcement services, item 2026, 0284, all commissioned districts.

Change order number six to contract number 113, 2039.

This animal shelter operation services for DeCad County, Georgia is a multi-year contract for use by the Department of Public Safety, Animal Enforcement Services.

This contract consists of providing animal shelter operations and services.

This request seeks to ratify a previously provided contract term and rate increase.

This request also seeks to increase contract funds scope and term through December 31st, 2027, awarded to lifeline animal project amount not to exceed 22 million two hundred and forty-four thousand five hundred dollars.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

So this item uh it's currently in audit, but I'll just give some high points on it, and hopefully next time we come back together, it will have gone through the um the review process in the audit uh office.

As you mentioned, yes, this is for the operation and management of the sheltering operations.

Um and then there's a series of add-ons that we have included in the um contract beyond the everyday management and oversight of the facility.

So the base services for each year are approximately 9.9 million dollars, and that gets the operation of the current facility as well as the uh 10 new um kennels that we brought online a couple of months ago.

So that covers the staffing for those.

But then there are a number of community initiatives and expansion programs, such as a uh mobile clinic uh for spay uh spay and neuter program, pet food bank, access to veterinary care, funding for community outreach uh initiatives, uh, and a certain amount of provision uh funding for crates leashes and so forth and pet supplies.

Our intent in this contract uh period uh to go between now and the end of December 27 is to really emphasize as much as possible on preventing uh dogs in particular, but animals making it into the shelter.

So when we look at our spay and neuter uh programs that uh we would be funding in 26 for the months of April through December, about $570,000, and then next year, I believe that would be about $750,000.

And I believe the number we're looking at is 4,000 free spay and neuters throughout the county each year, part next year, and then we were prorating that for this year.

Um, hiring a number of community engagement staff, um, which would it would be included uh community cat and pet resource hub uh tune of about $85,000 a year, um, and then supplemental upstream support that I mentioned earlier, your crates and and uh leashes, pet supplies.

All of these things are designed to keep pets at home and to uh reduce the number of unwanted or unplanned um litters.

Uh so that that's what we're really focused on.

So that's uh a general overview of how the money is going to be spent over the next couple of years.

Uh during this time period, we'd anticipate doing an RFP just to uh test the market.

Um there's no we don't have any complaints or anything with the existing provider, but it it would be a good opportunity for us to test the market.

And I think that's reasonable to prepare for an RFP just because I know last year we did um I think maybe about four times we ended up having to extend the contract like every three.

Every quarter or something like that, yes, or something like that.

And I know a couple folks had concerns about that strategy, even though we were trying to make it through the year.

Um, and so I think this will settle some minds just to show what is available to us.

Um for the transport ban, the one-time capital expenditure, that's an additional vehicle to what we have because we currently have one, is that right?

Yes.

Well, we well, our animal control officers have uh vehicles, but this would be something that would be used by Lifeline to assist in the uh community outreach that they would be doing.

Okay.

Um and since it was brought up, not implying anything at all, but if we are purchasing this vehicle in the event that there's another vendor after the RFP, we will review the process.

Yes, absolutely.

Yes, yes, ma'am.

Um then also I wanted to ask about the Spay and neuter capacity.

Does this include um on-site events or when lifeline partners with commissioners?

Because last all of the above.

Last year, um, I know several of us did events.

My district seven in particular, we partnered with CEO to do the Bark and Chill event, but both the administration and then my office, we had to pay for those services.

Right.

So the intent with this would be we would be able to um coordinate out outreach efforts in your districts, uh, and you know, the funding is here.

Okay, and then to that point, a little bit related to kind of not really on the side for community and g oh, that's specifically for staff.

Um I think I saw somewhere else where it it didn't say specifically staff, it just said community engagement.

So I prior to looking at this today, I had a question about what those community engagement activities were.

Was it planned over the next couple of years?

Next two years in order to get the 90,000 and the 120,000 dollars where those numbers came from.

Right.

So we can we can um talk you through those now or or next week if you like.

I mean, what or in two weeks, whatever you prefer.

But if Ms.

Quinn is here if you would like to hear from her.

Um okay, I I was gonna I was gonna be okay with waiting.

She's you're standing.

Did you want to come up and share?

I can if you have time.

Okay, yeah, go ahead.

And we'll make it brief because it's gonna come back in in uh two weeks.

Okay.

And so that is something that we do every now and then just to make sure everyone's awake.

Yeah, um, thank you.

I think I survived that.

I don't want to go through all of it because it will come back, but just in answer to your question, so just increasing capacity is not quite enough.

Like we can make spay neuter is not one of those things necessarily with you build it, they will come.

So we really need to target outreach to the communities where it's most needed, where we're seeing highest intake and that kind of thing.

So the the staff helps coordinate the spay neuter appointments, they're doing almost door-to-door outreach.

We're gonna try to flood social media.

This is a dramatic expansion for Spay neuter, all together with what you already have in place.

We add this in 2027, we're looking at 6,000 surgeries.

So that's what that team does, it coordinates all that.

People who don't have transportation, that's what the vehicles for, we'll be able to transport them to the clinics.

Um, so it it it is really not only making the services available, but connecting people to the services where they live, and that's what that team's about.

Thank you.

Um, and I know I took up so much time asking questions.

Commissioner Johnson, you have something.

Yes, I do, and along those lines.

So you you started asking some of the questions I had about the spay and neuter um opportunities because we also had an event in my we tagged it on to one of my community connection breakfast to have the mobile spay and neuter.

Um so when you were just mentioning, ma'am, about targeting areas with highest intake, um, where you are seeing that there is a problem.

Is that something that you can coordinate with the commissioners?

Absolutely.

And we can get help push out even additional information or coordinate an additional event um trying to target those areas.

Because I think I think what you and um COO Williams is saying, we can't build our way out of this.

We've got to be proactive and with the SPAY and neuter and stopping the um expansion of all many all all the pets.

Um so I I really appreciate the conversations on that.

So just to be certain, this would allow for a certain amount of funding from the general fund for the spay and neuter program.

So could we get an idea of roughly what that is for like each district?

And then if we're seeing additional need, we could maybe provide additional funding if there's a need for that.

Yes, from the district offices.

Yes, ma'am.

And thus far, the thinking is total numbers.

Um, and like Miss Gwynn just mentioned in 2027, um, it would be six thousand with what you already have, yes.

Right.

So we would be funding for six thousand, and I think it's five thousand for 2026.

And a little bit less.

Approximately because we prorated the year.

So I mean, I would think if if if commissioners wanted to schedule events or something, we'd we'd find a way to work that in.

I mean, these are very large now.

This is very ambitious.

Understood.

Okay, I yield.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners have questions or comments?

No.

Okay, so and this item has not come back from audit.

No, ma'am.

So we will entertain a motion to defer, I guess, about two weeks.

Go ahead.

Motion to defer this item for two weeks.

Second.

All in favor, aye.

Motion carries for deferral.

Thank you.

Moving on to fire rescue item 2026 0183.

All commission districts.

This is change order number four to contract number 1246 736.

Emergency medical supplies, annual contract with two options to renew for use by fire rescue.

This contract consists of purchase of emergency medical supplies for fire rescue and emergency medical service units vehicles.

This request seeks to ratify a previously provided contract term increase.

This request also seeks to increase the contract funds and term through June 30th, 26th, awarded to bound tree medical LLC amount not to exceed 360,000 dollars.

Hey T.

Good afternoon.

All right.

So can you just talk through this item for us, please?

Absolutely.

Uh so this contract is for medical supplies that we use on a day-to-day basis.

Um, the reason for the ratification and it is for the extension while the uh contract continues to work through the IT ITB process.

And I I do have a question.

This might be for Director Butler.

I see that the term is through June 30th.

Do we anticipate doing one of the renewals thereafter?

Uh a procurement process is already occurring.

So the June is just that's a stop gap.

We're almost through that process.

Okay, thank you.

I yield back any other.

I said I yield that we're any questions or comments from committee members?

No, ma'am.

From commissioners?

No.

Okay.

Do we have a motion for this item?

Motion to approve the time.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries for recommendation of approval.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Following, we have facilities management item 2026 0272, all commission districts.

This is a statewide contract number 9999 SPD, SPD 000172-006.

Integrated security and surveillance products and services for use by the Department of Facilities Management, consists of purchasing from the competitively let contract to purchase indoor and outdoor cameras with sensors for the video surveillance security system awarded to convergent technologies LLC amount not to exceed 146, 741 dollars and 40 cents.

Is anyone from facilities here to speak to this item?

Okay.

Um Zach, unless you know whether this is urgent, we'll just defer it until somebody's available.

Okay.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to defer for two weeks.

Is this for the libraries?

Second.

All in favor.

All right.

Motion carries recommendation for deferral.

Okay, we're gonna jump over to page three.

I'll come back to this walk on.

Actually, no.

Is this the one that was?

Oh, this is tires.

Oh, yes, that's right.

I'm sorry.

Okay, this is from this morning.

So we we will go with the police services item, all commission districts.

This is the addition to the fleet.

Um, and I didn't, I don't have that item.

Can you talk through that for us?

Good afternoon again, and and thank you.

Uh, this is actually exciting.

Um it's showing uh real real time growth.

Uh our police department grew over nine percent in sworn staffing last year.

Our projected growth this year is gonna be even better as we continue to uh um recruit and retain officers.

We had a 91% retention rate last year, which is an amazing feat.

Um I know that's wonderful.

Thank you.

Um so what we uh what we've noticed uh we started this time last year with about 530 sworn.

Right now we're at uh just over 590 sworn.

Uh so that's over 60 more officers.

And as you know, part of our uh recruiting and the attractive police department is all the officers gonna take home car.

Uh so with that, we've seen increase in need for additional vehicles for our fleet.

Um we have them in a budget, but the budget process and the procurement process takes a while.

We have located um several vehicles that we can get right now to really help the deficit that we're under.

Um just projected um this year.

We have 22 recruits that just graduated from the 142nd academy last month.

They're in field training.

Once they have completed field training, that's 22 more cars that we have to put officers in.

In our current academy classes, we've got two classes going for with a total of 27 recruits.

Um they'll need cars this year, in addition to in March, we're scheduling our next academy next month with well over 40 recruits in our our academy class.

So we're seeing great growth, but with that, we we're seeing uh having to add equipment and vehicles to that process.

So right now, this is for um Splosch money has been identified uh to cover this purchase, and the vehicles are sitting, but if we don't snatch them now, they may be gone by another police agency taking them.

Were we given a a deadline for that?

The ditorship did not give us a deadline, but they said they will go before we could do it in our normal purchase cycle.

Okay, and this just reading from the walk-on item that was given to us this morning for the 16 vehicles cost per vehicle 62,169, total cost 994,708 dollars, and this 16 covers you said the class that just graduated.

Yes, ma'am.

We have some spares that we will be able to recycle, uh, but we're running out completely, and we still have to have enough spares when vehicles are in for maintenance, uh, if they're crashed and things like that.

So this will be able to uh benefit us until we can get the normal funding process for the other vehicles that we have on replacement cycle.

Okay, yes, ma'am.

The uh when y'all do approve the budget at the end of the month, then that will set us motion to start purchasing more vehicles, but the delay potentially we'd have a potential chance of losing these.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Any questions or comments from committee members?

Commissioners, Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you.

Um, how long will it take uh for them to be delivered and then to be um outfitted with all the equipment?

As far as getting them delivered, it'll be a pro approximately two weeks from time they actually get to PO, we'll get them all delivered and then the upfit is a little more what chief would have to answer.

They did uh fits.

Yes, and we're looking at probably a month or two for for the outfitting of decal radio lights, okay, and all the internal thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay, do we have a motion for this item?

I move to approve the walk-on item for the 16 vehicles to recommend approval out of committee.

Second, all in favor?

Aye.

Congratulations.

You have a recommendation for approval.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

All right.

So I would like to.

Well, actually, let's do this first because this is gonna be really quick.

Um, under District 7 2026 0281.

That item on the last time that we met, um we needed just some feedback from state to support the fire marshals and the just overall the resolution as written with control blasting and safety ordinance that we put together, and we haven't gotten that feedback yet.

So I would like to see this deferred for a couple weeks more.

Remember, we're dealing with another entity, the state, and it may take a little bit of time.

So if you can make the motion to give enough time for them to give us feedback.

And do you think two weeks is enough?

I don't I didn't think it was enough the first time.

Do you want to do 30 days?

Yes.

Okay, I move that uh we defer this item for four weeks with the stop back and all in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries recommendation for 30 days, four-week deferral.

All right, so we're gonna go back to item two zero uh two five zero six eight three, all commission districts to approve a resolution to address egregious littering and the illegal dumping of scrap tires.

And we just received a printout for this item.

All right, Mr.

Allen.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you for your time today.

Um, staff is has brought to you a red line version of the latest uh edits to the scrap tire enforcement article um and the overall legislation that's been proposed by Commissioner Patrick and um as I'm aware, Commissioner Davis Johnson will be a co-sponsor on the substitute legislation that will be brought to you all as well.

This red line version is also incorporates some blue line versions, I guess we can call it on page seven under uh violations and penalties that incorporates what you all asked for uh the last time we had this conversation, which is the law department to review this legislation.

So the uh the words in blue as it relates to uh tire dumping for commercial purposes were you know brought to us by um one of the attorneys in our law department.

So if you would like, I can go through each of those, but in a nutshell, I'll kind of want to back up a little bit and uh request that you know prior to discussing this, we have a deferral to the second ERPS committee meeting in April to allow for the state general assembly to finish their legislation.

There's legislative process.

Um one of the things that we're looking at at the state level is to allow counties to increase fines and penalties for egregious tire dumping, and it may be prudent to allow for that process to play out and then make any decisions as it relates to increasing uh that is allowable at the state level to happen then.

Um however, as it stands now, I think this has great legs.

If you all want it to pass this now, I think we're in a good position to do so.

Um, but the other second caveat is the administrative end where the real work will happen, right?

And the administration's done a phenomenal job of um not only understanding the environment that we're in, but also moving from an enforcement uh standpoint to also um how we're going to address this from a comprehensive lens and have more partnerships at the county in.

Um by the time we get to April, I do believe that we'll have a comprehensive strategy to bring to you all, not just at the legislative level, but also at the administrative level that we'll put together um and be able to communicate really to our residents to our business owners.

Here is the process.

So the board is ahead of the curve.

Great job on this legislation, great teamwork.

There have been several conversations and meetings at the department level.

Um at the state level, there's some state legislation that's probably going to be proposed very soon.

Um so all those pieces are moving, but at the local level, we we already have what we need to move forward.

But again, we want to have the state legislative process in place, and then we move forward from there.

That's our recommendation.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Um, Commissioner uh Patrick, would you like to speak to this item?

Yeah, yes, uh, thank you, madam chair.

I sure appreciate that.

Um I really think that this is just perusing through what you've given to us again.

This is this is getting to be a better and better ordinance every time.

Uh, and then to hear what you've said that the administration is already working on getting their plan together so we can roll this out very effectively.

I think that's fantastic.

Um just from other experience uh on items we've been dealing with that the legislature gets involved with.

Um just from other experience uh on items we've been dealing with that the legislature gets involved with, I do think it's a good idea for us to uh let them do their thing and then we come in and make sure that um whatever changes or any modifications they've made to state law, this is actually able to uh adapt to that relatively easily.

Um there's a typo on the last page in the blue.

Uh it does say I did see that.

Okay, perfect.

Yep, we're good.

Any business occupation tax uh that's one letter off, so we'll we'll make sure that's that's updated.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Good eye.

Um, and then uh just to thank you to my colleagues, uh including the ones that are not here.

Um, this really has been a collaborative effort.

Like uh everyone's, I think, is given some input on this in some shape or form or fashion.

And uh I think this is really an example of what we can do when we work together as well as with the administration.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, madam chair.

Okay.

Uh did you have something, Commissioner Davis Johnson?

Yeah, I would like to thank uh Commissioner Patrick bringing this for and uh allow me to pick it back on them.

But uh I think it's needed legislation.

I think if we wait until April and see what the legislature is uh going to do, and if it passes, yes, ma'am.

Um, you know, it would strengthen opposition as to what we would need that we may not have in this legislation of what we could do.

Right.

So I'm in agreement with uh Commissioner Patrick and uh deferring this until April then.

You said the second meeting.

April 21st ERPS meeting.

April.

Yeah, 21st meeting.

Thank you.

Commissioner Johnson.

No, that actually clarified my question.

I just wanted to make sure I understood what the author was wanting us to do, so I'm I'm fine with deferring it.

But I think it is in good shape.

Commissioner Tier.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, Marcus, I think you kind of answered this in your preamble, but um what the state's considering has nothing to do with misdemeanor level fines.

Because right now, misdemeanor fines are captured a thousand dollars.

Right.

So if they're talking about adding more penalties, it's gonna be at the felony level, which is above 500 pounds for a dump site.

So I'm I'm not sure what we're waiting on because nothing on the admin at the misdemeanor level is being contemplated for legislative change of the Capitol.

So I mean, I I would I would submit that we can go ahead and approve this because this the legislature's not touching the fines for misdemeanors.

Is that correct?

Well, what you all have asked in your joint legislative agenda uh is three salient points as it relates to uh tire waste cleanups and reimbursements as well as uh the penalty structure that counties can be allowed.

And the third bullet point under there is allow counties the ability to increase fines and penalties for illegal tire dumping and egregious solid waste in violation of the county's code of ordinances for repeat violations.

As you eloquently stated, you know, the max of county or any municipality can fine for uh code violations is one thousand dollars per violation, that is correct.

I think the sentiment was that what would it look like if we were able to increase that?

Um we believe we found a little bit of a workaround to that by um making each dump tire a single offense.

I think that was actually proposed by you, Commissioner Terry, is you know, several commissioners, I believe, Commissioner Patrick as well.

Um so if a violator were to dump 50 tires, they would be charged a thousand dollars per tire dumped.

And that is a very good work around to that, and we do have an apparatus to support that.

Um so on one end, yes, that will be what the local government is looking at.

But again, we want to shore this up at the state level.

Is there any other fines and fees that are being considered at the state level and should we incorporate that?

The conversations that I've had with not just you all, but also our our lawyers and folks at the state level is that we should wait until that process plays out just to allow for the opportunity for our delegation to do that work.

Um we've had several of those conversations, and like I said, I that's more of a wait and see approach, but you all are in a very good position as it relates to local.

Okay.

Well, I think the um section 22-69 um section three C.

Well, I think the um section 22-69 um section three C is the most important part of the ordinance that really doesn't require waiting for the legislature to act because um my sense of what's really happening is that the shops that deal with tires are finding someone that's not authorized to take care of those scrap scrap tires.

And so the further the longer we wait to implement a system that says if you don't follow the ordinance, you lose your business license.

I don't I don't see any teeth in the existing ordinance to require them to do, you know, to have it audited to have the manifest, you know, going back uh three hundred and sixty-five days or whatever it is, however many months.

Um so to me, like that's the part that we need an act ASAP.

And Zach, I mean, honestly, the next question really, since we're talking about budget, is what do y'all need to enforce something that we're probably gonna approve in the next few months?

Because you know, it doesn't make sense to have an ordinance on the books if we can't enforce it.

We need someone to go and like immediately start auditing all of the scrap tire generators, and then you know, say, look, here's the new law, like we're gonna give you a little grace period, but you gotta start documenting.

Please do not give it to some guy with a U-Haul and say, I don't know, I don't care what you do with it, because it's gonna end up in the same place.

It's it's always been ending up.

Um did I did bring up the notion of how we would treat each tire dumped, but I am I am concerned that um simply increasing the fines is actually not gonna solve the problem.

Um I you know, I generally believe in restorative justice approaches, and you know, if we're gonna increase a fine, I would I would like to have some other uh diversion program that says, hey, maybe we can get you you know some pro you know some help to become a licensed scrap tire, you know, hauler, you know, and then they could actually get into a legitimate business.

I mean, we're in a way we're creating a job program right here.

If all of these tire shops are now gonna have to actually legitimately use an EPD approved generator, then now we have potentially more demand for that official designation, and the folks who are getting arrested, going to jail, you know, being fined, but then I don't even know how someone who's working class or lower class is gonna pay thousands of dollars in fines.

We're just we're setting up a motion system where we're gonna create people to live in a cycle of poverty.

Um if unless there's another option.

Hey, maybe you ought to consider working with us to clean up the tires, you know, that are out there through some community service program.

And oh, by the way, we can here's a program that actually will get you this EPD license, and then now you can have a job that's legitimate.

That could be looked at.

Um my personal opinion is that may be an administrative program that's put in place as opposed to a code amendment.

Um but yes, it could be a yes and conversation, but let's flesh that out, see what that looks like.

I see I think we all see what you're saying in terms of restorative justice, but um it would probably need to be on the programmatic level as opposed to wholesale ordinance change.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Um any other questions or comments from commissioners?

Okay.

I I would like to say um I do like the idea of restorative justice, but I don't think it applies here to dumping of tires.

I I think that's outside the scope of repair or a form of reparation support justice.

You yeah, that that's different.

But in any case, I do think um it's good to support those who when you propose legislation when you have support from your committee members, it does show that we're actively working with you and not against you.

So if there are no other questions or comments about this item, do we have a motion for it?

Yes, I make a motion that this item be uh deferred until I think you said April the 26th.

April 21st, Earth's committee meeting.

Yes, ma'am.

April the 21st.

With it so with that April 28th, BLC.

Yeah, prior to the April's on the 28th.

28.

But the prior stop back in or yes, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion carries recommendation for deferral.

We do have two discussions here.

Is our guest has our guest arrived?

It's on the way.

Okay, he's on the way.

Go budget.

We're able to go ahead and do the budget discussion.

Good afternoon.

Yes, sir.

So uh I don't have a presentation, but the central staff did send some questions over about specific departments, so I'm prepared to speak to those.

Um would you like me to just go down the list of the departments?

Yeah, give us just a minute.

Thank you, sir.

Alrighty, I think we're ready for you.

All right.

Um so the first department was human resources.

Their proposed budget is just over $8 million, so it's a three percent change.

Uh the reason for the change is increases in contracted services, including consulting services, the salary survey, and real-time salary database for government entities.

The total increase there is about 220,000.

The next item on the list is for the police contributions.

So this is contributions to capital from the police fund.

Um for all the CIP requests that we received, the recommendation is zero at this point because we're planning to go through that CIP planning process this spring and come back with the recommendation later on this year.

But uh that funding that was there last year was for um the real-time crime center mostly.

TJ, did you say you're discouraging CIP requests?

Is that what you said?

We're not discouraging them.

We're just not recommending any of them at this point because we're going through we're planning to go through the CIP committee process this summer, or excuse me, the spring and have a recommendation back this summer.

Okay, and here let us try to catch up.

Now, when you were just talking about the police fund, you're talking about the numbers on page 22 of this document.

We're looking at the 2.2 million dollars that you guys requested last year versus zero this year.

That's correct.

Okay, so uh commissioners, we're on page 22.

We're looking at the chart under ERPS committee.

The second box or second row from the bottom, contributions police fund 274.

Yeah, page 22.

So he was just speaking to and can you just repeat what you said now that folks know uh where what you're talking about?

Yes, ma'am.

So uh the next item on the list was the contributions to CIP from the police fund.

Uh the budget or what was uh budgeted last year was 229 or two, excuse me, 2 million 269,000.

Uh the proposal for this year is is zero.

Uh the reason being that we are holding all these CIP requests until we go through the CIP committee process to develop a five-year CIP recommendation.

And you were mentioning that this 2.2 was for what now?

It was for the real-time crime center.

In addition to the 18.9 million, or was that a part of the 18.9 million?

I'm sorry, I am not following the 18.9 million.

We approved 18.

Yeah, right.

That that's a contracted service, so it's it's separate from this.

So there was funding, a capital request last year to actually build the facility, and then the the 18 million is a multi-year uh contract for equipment, additional equipment.

Cameras, drones, and stuff.

Okay.

So we this won't be an annual request, it looks like it's as needed.

Correct.

All the typically all the CIP requests that we receive for the annual budget are just annual one-time requests.

Okay.

All right, so you can well now I really need you to go back to the first thing you were talking about.

So the first item was the human resources department.

And the proposed budget this year is uh about 8.2 million versus uh just over 8 million last year.

So that's a 220,000 increase, uh change of three percent.

And that's related to increases in contracted services, so that includes consulting services, uh salary surveys, and a real-time salary database for government entities.

Okay.

All right.

Well, since we're did you have more questions to go through on the end of the yeah it's just uh I think there's maybe five more departments on the list, but if you have questions now.

Um, Commissioners, do you have any questions before I ask him to continue?

Okay, Commissioner Davis Johnson has something.

Um DEMA it was a 45% increase, and on five general fund, it was a 48% increase.

Could you sort of explain those increases?

Yes, ma'am.

So DEMA, it was an increase to 1.9 million from 1.3 million last year, which is 623,000.

Um that funding, the additional funding includes funding for the director position, which was vacant last year, as well as for generator and weather stations.

So some equipment, which would be more the lines of a one-time cost for them.

And then on fire general fund, uh the increase there was uh 5.8 million or 58 percent increase, and that's uh really entirely due to the the new contract with the uh ambulance services.

So there were some other savings that's offsetting that somewhat because that contract is budgeted at 7.5 million this year.

Okay, okay.

I yield back.

All right.

Can you continue through with the questions?

Yes.

Uh so the next item on my list was the police budget for uh in the police fund, which is showing a three percent decrease.

Um that's really related to how we're funding the vacant positions and the timing of that, as well as removal of one-time costs for uh ATVs, flock cameras, office equipment, um North Lake CID off-duty officers, computer equipment, and subscriptions that are IT related, and some of that we might be revisiting in as part of the um amendment as well, just because you heard just as you just heard from the police chief, they're doing a good job of retaining and attracting officers.

Okay, okay.

Um next item is for the non-departmental police fund, which is a uh proposal of 20.7 million versus 22.2 million last year.

So that's a one point roughly a 1.5 million decrease, which is seven percent, and that's due to a reduction in the cost allocation.

So each of the funds outside of the general fund, we have a indirect cost allocation, so there's general fund administrative charges that they pay.

So just based on the allocation, which is looking at um financial data from I think it was from the FY23 audit to then allocate those costs among the different departments, so that number was lower for police than it was last year.

Commissioner Johnson.

Thank you.

Question on that.

So will we continue to see that keep decreasing as time goes?

It really depends on what the allocation factors are.

Okay.

So just as an example, you know, they'll look at facilities budget, and the allocation factor might be the percentage of square footage that a department's occupying.

Um and so if they get new office space, uh then that number might increase.

So there's a lot of different variables that could change from year to year on that.

Understood.

Thank you.

Are you okay?

You go ahead.

Okay.

Uh the next is contributions fire fund.

So last year there was four hundred thousand dollars, and that was actually for a three-year project to replace uh I think the overhead doors in the some of the stations, and that's been completed.

And you said that was for what?

That's that was for uh contributions fire fund.

Okay.

Well, there's also non-department law as well on the list.

And how much was that difference?

400,000.

That was a decrease.

Contributions fire was a decrease.

Correct.

So they had a a capital project that was funded over three years, and so last year was a third year of that funding, so there was no request this year.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

Um discussed fire general fund.

Uh so the last one on the list is non-departmental fire fund, um, which that is a six percent decrease, so roughly eight hundred thousand dollars.

Um to twelve point one million, and that is also related to the cost allocation study and their indirect costs for the general fund.

Okay.

Uh I would like to see um if we could see the departmental budgets, a comparison from last year to this year.

Because it does add a lot of value to be able to see where maybe we're overestimating when it comes to budget requests versus one time requests, because immediately upon seeing the 48 and 58 was concerning because you know we had no context around it, but if we can get those from last year, the departmental budget, and then the requests from this year, if you can email that to the board, committee members, of course, as well.

But so we can look at that comparison for our um determination for any other questions or comments from commissioners.

Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um TJ, the fund balance for the police fund is 1.9 months.

Um, and then the police fund is uh being reduced by 3.4 million this year.

So are we still sort of in the posture of trying to of just fully funding all vacant police positions for the entire year?

We are, but as I mentioned, we might have to revisit where we are with that.

Because I I believe just from what I've heard and what I I know from speaking with the police chief, we're maybe a little bit further ahead in filling some of those positions than we thought we were.

Okay.

Basically, what we do is we we fund all the positions, but we stagger them over the year.

Okay, so we don't fund a full year for all the the vacant positions.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

Okay, so this is you're trying to be as close as you can to what might happen.

Right.

And you know, and that was our general approach in this budget overall, was trying to find any place where we might be able to trim because we do want to be able to um supplement our our rated aid funds, but in some cases we might have to go back and say, okay, that was maybe a little bit too much there.

So what was the um the DEMA increase again?

Uh so it was some equipment, so a generator and weather stations.

A generator, okay.

As well as funding for the director position that was vacant last year.

Oh, I see, okay.

So just it was just lower last year because it was a lesson.

Right.

So there was you know, that that position wasn't funded because it was vacant, and then there were these purchases are kind of like one-time cost for this year.

I see.

Okay.

And then was there anything on E911?

Um, I I think they were relatively flat.

Okay.

I think that's why they didn't appear on this list.

I see.

Okay.

And are we um Zach?

Do we how are we doing on our response times?

I can have Director Swain speak to that, but uh off the top of my head I couldn't tell you.

Fine.

Um, yeah, it wasn't relevant, is relevant because the issue the last two years where they said there wasn't enough staff to respond.

Yes, as it relates to within that 90 seconds, and so we're not gonna do that.

Just generalize their response, make it brief because I believe it's continuing to get better, and I believe we've staffed the positions.

We're fully staffed.

Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Good afternoon.

We have seen an increase in our answer times.

Um last year we were about 73 percent.

Right now we're ranging about 83 to 86 percent, which is getting us closer to the um 90 percent service level.

We asked for 90 percent of our calls within 15 seconds.

Um we have seen that increase with the uh implementation of the new phone system that we receive.

Um, and we are about 15 positions short right now, at which we will be uh starting our next class April 13th to fund to um fill those vacant positions.

Okay.

Well, while we have you right here, your budget is relatively flat.

That's what TJ was saying.

You guys didn't have any new budget requests.

Uh I'm trying to remember everything that was on that.

So nothing significant, it seems like nothing significant, correct?

I was trying to remember everything that was light on our budget, but nothing significant.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners?

Because we do have one other presentation that I do want to get into the budget as well.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Um, but just don't forget to send the comparison last year versus the request this year.

If I could clarify on that, are you looking for the budget versus actuals for last year or the request from last year versus the work request this year?

I'm just trying to understand exactly.

Now that you say that, you've added something, another column.

Requests versus actual versus from last year versus uh requested for this year.

Right.

I may need to talk to with the offline because I believe that's in the budget document that we submitted.

Okay, it shows the both the budget last year as well as the request this year and the recommendations for this year.

For all of the departments, correct.

Okay.

All right, I'll check that again.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, are we ready for our pension discussion?

Oh, there you go.

There you go, my buddy.

You got some money for us.

I hate it.

I'll be requesting some from you, seem like make it worth my while.

Yes, ma'am.

All right, you want to talk us through the document?

Yes, ma'am.

So um I sort of just made it quick because you had we had three things, and I figured you just want to get on down to business.

Number one is a line of duty death benefit.

You all will approve that is concept.

You asked the uh county attorney to prepare you a home rule amendment to get that done.

The annual cost is 64,009 three.

You can see that the group one, its pension plan is designed to pay 82 and a half percent of the salary at retirement age.

That's the 2.75 percent multiplier.

Group two is designed to pay 67 and a half percent of an employee's salary at retirement.

Group three is 30 percent of salary at retirement.

What the home rule amendment is gonna do is if an employee in public safety.

Um it's not all employees, it's just employee in public safety.

Dies in a line of duty, no matter where they are in their career, they will uh their beneficiaries will get a retirement check as if that employee had worked the entire time to to get that maximum percentage of their salary.

And um, I believe county attorney is bringing you a home rule amendment.

One one quick point.

I thought there may have been an addition of public works as well because of their frontline work and the limited chance that they could unfortunately lose their life in the line, but I thought both.

I could be wrong, but I thought I'd say that.

I'll double check it when we look at the documents.

Okay, that's up for discussion, but I I want to clarify whether the uh estimated costs would be inclusive of public works as well.

It was just for public safety.

Okay, but it wouldn't be that much more, you know.

Fortunately, not many people pass away.

So it wouldn't be that much more if you wanted to include them, and I could get you that figure.

Okay, Siegel, the actuary crunches those numbers for me.

Gotcha, thank you, sir.

Um, and so that's already in the works, county attorney's working on it.

Item number two is retiree cola.

Um, you all have given uh on an ad hoc basis a cola cost of living adjustment to retirees.

They've received approximately eight percent in the last 20 years.

We used to do uh three percent every three years that quit in 07 because in 08, you know, the stock market crashed with the great recession, and so for the longest time we didn't give any cola at all.

Uh in the last um six or seven years, you all have given a total of eight percent over that time period.

And so uh um the retirees and the pension board asked me to request that of you.

The annual cost is two million nine ninety-three.

It would be a two percent COLA starting from January 126 is 5,593 retirees.

What is your pleasure, madam chair?

Um, I will say, based on what we just discussed and all these decreases from last year to this year.

I think I found about 2.9 million dollars.

I do.

I think we have it.

Okay.

So let's put a pen in that before you make a decision.

Let me do number three, and then you can take them both up together.

Okay.

Item number three was another initiative by members of my pension board who are uh employee uh representatives.

Um you all know that uh retention of employees is very difficult.

You would hire them, they would train, and then they go somewhere else.

And so one of the thoughts was that the group three with a one percent multiplier is not a good enough pension plan to retain them.

And so you would move group three to group two.

What would it cost?

The annual cost is eighteen million nine hundred and sixteen thousand, but you already give in group three have a one percent multiplier, but you give three percent uh in a defined contribution plan, like a 401k to all to all employees who aren't public safety, and you give six percent for public safety, and that total last year was eight million dollars.

And so if you moved group three to group two, you would eliminate the defined contribution plan.

That is the thought, you don't have to.

And I would uh deduct that eight million from the new cost of eighteen million nine, so the cost would be ten million nine sixteen.

Let's talk about what that is.

Of all your employees, eight hundred and sixty are in group one.

Remember that was people who were employed prior to 05.

Group two is 06 to 16.

That's 1,326 employees of a 2.25% multiplier, and then group three or those that were hired uh after 2016, that's 4,024 employees, they get a 1% multiplier plus 3% for defined contribution, 6% for public safety.

Um Malachi Waterman, who's a our actuary at Siegel, he uh asked me to consider and present to you a plan.

Um, you know, I've been on the pension board for like 30 years.

We used to have a rolling 30-year amortization.

So you all have heard me talk about in the pension plan the unfunded liability.

And that unfunded liability is designed to be funded up to 100 percent.

If you have a rolling 30-year amortization, it's not like a home mortgage where you ultimately pay it off.

And so after the 08 recession, when we fell to 44 percent funded, we did a 30-year fixed amortization in which it would be like a mortgage and we keep paying it till it got completely paid off 30 years from 2008.

We have uh 18 years left in that amortization.

Your plan now, thankfully, because the stock market's done so well, uh, is it 75% funded at a market value status?

So it's just really good.

You're super healthy plan.

And um, he said if we extended the amortization for two more years from 18 years to 20 years.

So think about it like you if you're getting a new room on your house and you go refinance your mortgage or you get a home equity line of credit, you'd be extending two more years on that mortgage.

And so if we went to 20 years, the cost of moving group three to group two would be eight million, would be twelve million four sixteen.

I subtract the eight million from it, and it would cost four million four sixteen.

And so the decision tree for y'all is do you want to move group three to group two?

Would you like to make it a little bit more affordable and extend the amortization from 18 to 20?

And um, what do you want to do with the retiree cola?

So is that with the additional two years?

Is that with the 20 years and getting rid of the three percent defined contribution that we get to the 4.4?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And think about it for just a second.

Look up at underline number one.

Group two is designed to give you 67 and a half percent of your salary.

You would add on to that Social Security.

And so the thought is you don't need the 401k type plan if you go to group two.

You knew I was thinking that.

I was thinking about how much damage would be done, if any, or if it's more of a benefit to get uh get rid of the defined contribution.

Okay.

Well, one of the things you could say is just contributed more to the defined contribution if you didn't want to.

The whole argument with pensions these days is um younger employees don't stay and get a gold watch, and so they might want to be more mobile, and so with a 401k, they can always move it with them.

And you know, y'all don't call it a 401k, I think it's called a one's called a 404 and one's called a 457.

But they can move it with them.

But um, as far as you coming up with a an incentive to retain employees after you invested so much in training them, a defined benefit plan, the old fashioned finishing plan, that's more retaining than it is them just picking up the 401k and moving.

But you could consider just contributing more to a defined contribution plan if you wanted to.

But that's not on here as an option.

Okay, because the goal is retention.

Yes, ma'am.

That is the goal.

But based on what you were just describing, it does make me wonder because people like flexibility even if they don't use it.

So would that deter people if they know they don't even have the if we remove the three percent defined contribution, would that deter folks with both recruitment and retention if they know they don't have the flexibility coming in like they would have somewhere else?

Do um do you is your human resources director here?

No, yes.

Maybe she could speak to it better than I can.

And I'm just thinking out loud.

So if if you you don't have a response right now, I understand, but go ahead and Johnson.

I would I I think I would like to see kind of a breakdown of what that cost would be if we were to say go up to the six percent defined contribution, maybe six and nine, um, and what that might do might what that cost would look like.

So I could I could back into that.

So if three percent and six percent was eight million bucks, gotcha one another three and another three would be five million bucks.

And so the cost to move group three to group two if you move the amortization from eighteen twenty is about four million four.

So it's about the same number.

So I backed into it three and six is eight million, and so one and a half and three would be four million.

Understood.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

Yes, ma'am.

So we were just talking through our options.

Ultimately, the goal is one of our retention strategies is to improve our pension.

So we were talking about moving group three to group two.

And one of the strategies in order to move the groups is to get rid of the three percent defined contribution, which has a little bit more flexibility if people decide to go to another job, they can take those that retirement funding with them.

Even though our priority is retention, sometimes not having the option for flexibility could be a deterrent.

So we were just kind of talking through if we were to get rid of the three percent defined contribution so that we could increase our pension for folks in group three.

Do you think that may deter folks from wanting to come or stand a cat because we have removed one of their options for retirement?

I don't I don't think so.

I don't think it would deter new hires.

Okay.

That's all I needed to hear.

Can I ask her if we leave or do you believe moving group three to group two would be a beneficial thing?

I do.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Yep, I don't even need an explanation.

And two to one.

Group two to one.

We're gonna give that two.

We're gonna get there.

I'm gonna put that plug in.

Move two to one.

She had plenty of walking around since I mean, because that four million is looking good to me.

It's looking really good to me with only a two-year added on to the emergency amateurization period.

Uh okay, so I'd like some feedback.

Well, were you gonna go through all of the slides?

No, ma'am.

So all of the slides are just my TJ kind of things to justify that one page.

So it's so all the other slides are just the detailed stuff.

Oh, I I did have a question.

So is the 4.4 million to re remove to move the 4,024 folks from group three to group two, or are we phasing it in where the first thousand is four million this year and then next year an additional four thousand?

Great question.

So you had asked me that the last time I was here, and I went back to Siegel and to the staff, and um you know, Siegel is actuary and they are do plans all over the nation.

They said the administrative headache of trying to keep up with 15 years from now, which you know, if I moved them up in chunks, it would be so difficult to try to keep up with it all.

And so they said the best way to uh do it is just to move them all at once, and um and the phasing that's how they came up with moving 18 to 20.

Um that made the financial burden a whole lot less.

But they thought the other way which you suggested, which makes sense to do it phase like that, that it would be an administrative nightmare to keep up with it, and then how do you pick who gets picked?

So that's what they said.

Okay.

All right, so I'd like some feedback from committee members.

I think it's doable.

If we go back to what TJ said, we say eight hundred thousand and fire fund, non-departmental, we save two point two six nine million for contributions and police fund, we save one point four eight million with non-departmental police fund, we say three point three nine seven, let's say three point four million with police, yeah.

The police fund that sounds like um what what am I asking for?

That sounds like four plus two.

That sound like seven million dollars.

Um TJ has walked up, so I'm curious.

Oh, hey, but you can't say well, yeah, I I did want to speak to especially the cost allocation plan and how those costs are allocated.

Is they didn't really go down, they just went different places.

So everything, all the costs that are allocable from the general fund get allocated.

So what that means is maybe police went down, but maybe sanitations went up or fire went down, and then you know watershed went up.

Any of those, so there's really not that's not a net savings there for cost allocation.

I understand what you're trying to do.

Just wanted to make that clarification.

Next time, TJ, I'm not gonna let you speak.

Can't madam chair.

Can you speak, TJ, to about this if they were to approve it, where will the money come from?

So it's uh four and a half million.

You would you have the money in the budget, you have to come up with it?

At this point, it would have to come from the reserves, so it'd be lowering our fund balance.

Unless there was another mechanism to raise the revenue.

That's for both the Cola and the move to group two, but we could pick either or potentially correct.

Okay.

Although both would require either reducing the the reserves, reducing some other budget, or increasing revenue from another source.

Okay.

And so you're saying the savings she thought she had the savings.

Well, it's not it's the savings has already been budgeted.

It's baked, it's baked into the budget.

So the only way to really uh come up with new money would be to take it from somewhere else in the budget.

Okay.

All right, commissioners.

Let me get some feedback.

We've been bold all 2025.

Don't get scared now.

Commissioner Johnson.

Yes, thank you, madam chair.

So I think it is important for us to see if we can fund um, especially the move from group three to group two.

I like the extending the two-year amateurization and making that more affordable for us to manage.

Um I know I've heard from employees who know I'm on herbs and like, hey, are y'all gonna do this or not?

Because I really want it to happen.

Um, so I do think that is an incentive um for retention.

Um I would like to also look at the Cola for two percent.

Um and remind me again.

We did we do cola last year?

I don't think so.

We did last year for two percent.

I'm sorry.

2024 for three percent.

I'm sorry, 2024 was the last two percent.

Okay.

So it probably is time to do another two percent in 2026 because everything is getting more expensive.

Um, but understanding I don't know where the money comes from.

So if I were sitting in y'all shoes, I would tell staff this is what you want to do, and they bring in you the budget.

Um I don't know, you know, they've they're talking about a millage rate adjustment, and they're bringing you that, ask them to include this so that you all can evaluate it.

I mean, you know what I mean?

Say that.

Ma'am.

Say that.

I can't so ask them, ask them to bring you the numbers so you can see it, you know, before you raise your hand and say yes.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Well, let me get a quick point of clarity.

I know you want to say something.

We we're talking about the three percent defined comp contribution.

Will it impact the six percent for public safety?

Would that be reduced or eliminated?

Eliminate.

I'm eliminating both of them.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm saying I am.

This plan does that.

You don't have to do that, but it saves you that eight million, which then I apply to the cost of moving group three to group two.

So look at without don't take if you left the eight million DC plan alone.

If I keep the 18-year amortization, the cost is 18 million nine.

If I keep the 8 million and go to 20 years, the cost is 12 million four.

And so I'm deducting that 8 million from those numbers to come up with the 10 million and four million.

Okay.

See what I'm saying?

And then if you would turn to the second page, just real quick.

The total cost of your pension plan, your annual contribution for 26 would be 83 million, two hundred and ten thousand, that first number up there.

It's 21.69% of pay.

And so what we're talking about for 27, that number will go up by whatever you decide with these figures.

All right, and you were gonna add something to that, Zach?

Yes, thank thank you, Madam Chair.

I was just going to say if before any decisions are made, I would love the opportunity to do additional fiscal impact analysis on you know what this will mean for all of these things.

And we have been talking for a while about the movement of uh certain employees as as well as all employees in group three to group two.

But um, you know, the devil, as they say, is in the detail.

And so, you know, I I would want an opportunity to really revisit or visit that and understand what does that mean with the contributions employees have made, how much of that comes over it?

You know, just a lot more detail.

Uh and and even including the retiree colour.

Um, you know, as you contemplate a retiree call, um, we're still trying to evaluate do we have money for an employee call out?

So I just want to put everything in context.

Okay.

Commissioner Johnson.

Yes.

Um CO Williams, when did you think you might be able to have that financial impact?

12 months.

I know we're in the middle of budget cycles.

Right, right.

So it's it's going to take a few weeks, I would I would certainly imagine.

So I mean, give us 30 days.

Okay.

That's what I was thinking.

Say that again.

Um I'm a comeback mid-year if we don't do anything with it now.

I think that's fair.

Right.

Yeah.

And then well, and actually a mid-year, um, Madam Chair, gets us closer maybe to understanding what you know you know, the economy is gonna look like and so forth, too.

Okay.

Commissioner Terry, you had something.

Um yes, I was hoping uh maybe Ed could put together kind of a rubric because I was following some of the numbers, but you also were just kind of throwing out numbers that aren't exactly on the screen.

So I think it would be good to have like an actual like rubric chart that explained this is what this does and have them in a table that actually um can be compared.

Yes.

Um and one thing I might offer something that would help our decision a little bit further.

Um, could you run the numbers for just doing public safety?

Police fire E911, um, because I think we've acknowledged that's where the CEO's priorities are in terms of staffing and retention.

Um but I would like us to look at the whole organization.

Um I might suggest let's just understand the public safety impact.

Um also could you explain um would this be opt-in?

Would group three get a choice or would they be required?

Required.

They'd be required, okay.

Um then in terms of the extended vesting period, is it is it seven years now?

Yes.

So what would be the impact if you incre uh extended um the time needed to vest.

So um I don't think there's any difference in the time period between group three and group two, is there?

I don't know.

Well, I think the point I'll try to make is um Madam Chair is that um seven years is when you get vested, and you might argue, well, the longer they stay, the their salary goes up, so they'll it's the incentive is there.

But I might also argue that if you have a uh an uh you know a ten-year vesting period for police fire or whatever, then you're you're kind of sort of locking them in for ten years, and I don't know how that would uh it could improve the retention strategy for the police.

So it I'll have to confirm it, but the group one has a five-year vesting period.

Group two and three are seven.

Okay, well, group one's done.

Right, I know, but I was just saying that's how I keep it straight in my head.

And so moving group three to group two doesn't change uh their vesting period.

In other words, they were you can't change it.

Um for new hires.

I uh uh I can change it for new hires, yes, sir.

Okay, all right if I want to.

All right, well, and then there's the the uh folks that design these plans.

I remember when we were doing from five to seven.

For some reason or another, the statistics on it, it's so long that it doesn't retain anybody.

The young kid thinks ten years is forever.

But I don't know, it's some kind of mental thing.

Okay, all right.

I was just curious.

Um okay, and then the 4.4 million is annual as 12 months.

Yes.

Okay, so I think we should just like ask the question of what would be the impact fiscal year 2026.

It'd be low, it'd be lower than 4.4.

Well, this is to take effect in 2027.

So the 26 numbers already baked in, that's the 83 million two tenth.

Oh, okay.

Well, we're talking about next year's all right.

So actually we're not even talking about this year's budget.

Well, but that's you know you don't not look at it like that.

Well, no, I mean, but I know what you mean.

Yeah.

No, well, no, but I I thought we were because TJ just said, well, where's the money going to come from?

But this is FY27, then I mean we got time to figure that out.

We do.

Okay.

All right.

Well, that was the key point that you missed from the presentation.

Is it going to affect FY27?

Okay.

Um, I mean, I I'm in support of this.

Um, Madam Chair, I I fully believe, and I've heard and I've heard mostly from public safety saying that that is the incentive.

Um because there's folks who are in the fire department who are group two and group three, and group two is like staying solid.

But group three is going to Gwyneth, they're they're lateraling because of the better benefits and pay and et cetera.

Um I I will just bring up one thing that hasn't been discussed in the in terms of the retiree cola, and Ed, you remember me talking about this, but you know, when those retirees, when those were employees, um they had a plan that didn't have a cola built into their contribution.

So I think it would be interesting to maybe help out future county commissioners.

If we do do group two, let's build in a c an automatic cola into the formula that would be employee contribution.

So that way, uh, because right now we're deciding to spend tax money from current taxpayers to pay employees that have long since you know retired, and that was never part of the agreement.

And so I mean it's uh it's nice for them, but it honestly was never part of the agreement.

So we have talked about an automatic cola before.

It is the opinion or was the opinion of your county attorney's office, Vivian and Laura Johnson, that because of the prohibition in the Georgia Constitution of binding successors in office that you can't do an automatic colour now.

Not every lawyer has that opinion, but it hasn't been theirs.

Well, all right, so I think we should research the idea of funding a cola, and it wouldn't be automatic, it would just be already funded in essence.

So the commission wouldn't have to take it out of tax funds, they just simply take it out of the pension funds.

You see what I'm saying?

Yes, sir.

So but I mean just understanding what would be the employee contribution so that all retire all employees right here that they're in group two, they know okay, I'm signing up for group two, here's how much I'm paying, and then when I retire, I'll have two percent, three percent, whatever it is for the life of my pension.

So in that regard, because for the previous six, seven years you've given an eight percent cola, every five years the actuary does an experience study.

And they're required by the ethics of their profession that since we had given a cola, it averaged to half a percent a year for that five year experience study.

So they're forcing us in the science of actual science, the numbers that we're giving you assumes a half a percent cola each year.

Oh and if you don't give it, then it just adds to the funded balance.

It goes to the unfunded fund balance.

Oh, interesting.

Okay, so they're already trying to bake that in.

At least a half a percent.

Okay.

Um we'll go ahead and wrap up because we're into PWI's time.

So what I would like to request, um, I do like Commissioner Terry's idea of breaking it down a little bit more so everyone uh can digest it a little better.

I know we have been talking about it for some time.

So um the numbers look good to me, but I need to make sure they look good to everybody.

So if you could do that for us, please, and then ah shoot, that would say something else.

And then oh, um earlier in the year last year, did we do the numbers for public safety?

We did.

We did that already.

Okay.

I just gotta update them with the new employees because it was a year old.

Okay.

And I drank so much liquor I can't remember what the numbers were.

You are something else.

Okay.

Well, I'll get have to get back to you.

When when your vision clear up, if you can send those numbers over, that would be good.

Yes, ma'am.

Um ideally we we want to do everyone, but um, yeah, it's no calls one way or another just to share those additional numbers as well.

But do I have the consensus of the committee at least for the line of duty death benefit?

I have to recruit my set.

Oh, yeah, that's right.

Yes, you did.

Okay.

So you got that, please, sir?

Because that's just sixty-four thousand dollars.

We can do that.

Please make the recommendation do what now?

Need it in a motion.

Oh, okay.

I got a question.

Uh uh, Commissioner Patrick.

Hey, um, so there were a lot of different, I guess departments talked about.

I know it started off with public safety, and then I thought I heard public works was included in that.

Is that is that accurate?

And then I thought I heard Zach say they're also looking into all employees.

So I just clarify who all are we talking about for the move from three to two for three to two.

The request was to move everyone from three to two, but um, I think attorney Phillips said he thought public works was included in the death benefit, but we we did not do the numbers for that.

That was not included.

So I I did the sixty-three thousand is public safety alone.

I will go back, but it won't be much difference.

Okay.

And does that include well?

I think you just said that I was gonna ask, does it include watershed management?

It does not.

It includes they're separate on their own.

Right.

Okay, that's fine.

Thank you so the sixty-three thousand is just fire and police, maybe nine one one public safety.

But if you want me to include all employees, I'll just get back to your number number, but it might be 70 grand instead of 63.

It won't be a lot different.

Is that what you were gonna speak to?

I was just gonna clarify public works would include watershed.

Okay.

What I heard yes.

So I apologize to you.

So Larry told me the 63,000 includes 64,000 includes everybody, right, Larry?

Yes, sir.

Right.

So it does include everybody.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Even better.

All right.

64,000 for everybody.

You had something else after that, Commissioner?

Okay.

All right, go ahead.

Yes, ma'am.

So at this time I move to approve a recommendation and move forward with the line of debt.

Line of duty death benefit paid the beneficiaries with the annual cost of roughly sixty-four thousand dollars.

Yes.

Second.

We got a vote.

I'd like to no, we requested retroactive.

Yes.

Retroactive as of last year, January 25, right?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

It covers the two for budget.

It covers the two employees who did in fact die that brought this to our attention.

Yeah, to cover the two from last year.

And um, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, Zach.

Abstention.

With one abstention.

Zach, we coming back for you.

Yes, ma'am.

Uh I just want to make sure that um we're gonna have some numbers to work with in a couple months.

Can we can we set a deadline?

Yep, absolutely, absolutely.

And so just to be clear, we're looking at the fiscal impact of moving group three employees all to group two.

Okay.

Um additionally, I guess we can also just revisit uh I'm sure Mr.

Uh Wall's numbers are accurate on the retiree call up, but we can revisit those numbers too.

Okay.

All right, wonderful.

Any other questions, comments, or concerns?

Doesn't look like it.

Nope.

All right.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Second question.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.