Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Commissioner Marita Davis Johnson and I chair the ops committee.

My colleagues that are with me on the ops committee is Commissioner Ladina Bowden and Commissioner Robert Patrick.

Have uh you all had an opportunity to read the uh minutes of February the 13th of February the 12th.

Uh make a motion to approve 0362.

Second.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, the minutes are passed.

Uh have you all had an opportunity to read the February 17th meeting?

Minutes.

I move to approve item 2026 0363.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, those minutes are approved.

Um first item is a resolution of the Board of Commission of the Camp County.

Uh reaffirming the county's um prior authorization to seek recovery of cost of impoundment of care for uh court held dogs pursuant to the Code of Georgia for 1198, urging that the CAP County Law Department to resume filing costs of care petitions and to create a court held dog coordinator position.

And I think that uh that item has been continued as Demetrius here.

John, didn't we continue that item for the note?

Um we held that item because the sponsoring commissioner wasn't here in preparation for an update from law.

Okay.

Well, she's not here right now, so we'll continue to hold it.

Yes.

Okay.

The next item is uh 1855, a resolution of the Board of Commissioners because County redirected the law department to initiate the dissolution of obsolete boards commissioning uh authorities and to consolidate sustainability efforts.

Um we it was on hold.

But uh I think that we are pretty much I think that it makes sense uh because if we are not using these uh boards or committees, they need to be uh moved on.

So is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2025 1855.

I'll second them, but I do have a follow-up question.

Okay.

Um is the expectation that we just approve the resolution and then it goes to county staff, or is the idea that we kind of work a lock step with whoever would review these and have that?

If we approve this county attorney, what happens from here?

If this commission passes this resolution, we would have a discussion with the sponsoring commissioner about what exactly is desired of the law department, obviously an inventory of existing bodies that you are considering, um, the age of them helpful research to help identify what you would need to do to remove those that are obsolete.

So you'll talk with the sponsoring.

Right.

And I'm I'm I've gotta say, madam chair, that I'm trying to make the best sense of this in terms of the law department initiating.

The only thing I could see the law department doing that would be clearly appropriate is the initial research to help make informed help allow you guys to make informed decisions.

Okay, thank you.

We're we're we kind of launched Kellen to get through.

And Zach, I I want to allow about 30 minutes at the end so that I can go through charter review because we're getting ready for crossover.

Yes, ma'am.

So could you identify what is pressing on this while we are going through?

Yes, ma'am.

So we have an appropriate we have a motion to approve and a second on 1855.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, so that's uh that's passed.

Uh I think we can just that.

Okay.

So 251189 is a resolution adopting digital accessibility compliance measures to meet the requirements of title two of the Americans with Disability Act.

Is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2025 1189.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Um if you could just give me the check off which one said you.

Okay, the next item is facility management 260188.

Is the change order to number six, the contract number 1307812, repair, maintenance, and installation of fire, intrusion alarm system.

Um for use by the department of facility management watershed.

This contract consists of providing maintenance repair and installation of fire intrusion alarm assistance.

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

This um request also seeks to increase the contract term through decent.

I mean through June the 30th uh 2026 awarded the all-star fire LLC amount not to exceed 275,000.

How you doing?

I'm doing good.

Good.

No.

Okay.

All right, there you go.

Uh good afternoon, madam chair.

Um, this contract is for our fire alarm systems for all the DeCab County facilities for the fire alarms and the uh intrusion alarms.

So we're asking to extend this contract to June 30th and add 275,000 to the contract.

We're also um uh uh working on the ITB to complete a new contract, so that's in process right now.

Okay, are there any questions?

Okay.

Is the extension to help with us preparing for an RFP?

Uh it's an ITB.

An ITB.

Yes, ma'am.

And then this says a to ratify a previously provided contract term increase and a term through June 30th.

I don't see where it says to increase the amount on the contract.

Uh it's requesting 275,000 to be added to the contract to end to the end of the year.

Um through June or through the through June, yes, ma'am.

And the 275 includes the ratification in any funds that were used for the ratification and through June 30th, or is it just through June 30th?

Just through June 30th.

Okay, I yield back.

Okay.

Um no questions.

Okay, is there a motion?

Motion to approve 0188.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

The next item is 260189.

This is a change order.

Um, uninterrupted interruptible power supply systems and your contract with two options to renew for the department of facility management.

This contract consists of providing preventive uh maintenance service for UPS assistance.

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

This request also seeks to increase the contract term through June the 30th, 2026, awarded to AC and DC Power Technologies LLC.

It's the contract term extension only.

Yes, ma'am.

This uh contract is for our uninterruptible power supplies, so they provide electrical power for a brief time to keep the when you have a power out, it's to keep the networking and the computer equipment working.

So we're seeking to uh extend this contract to June 30th to keep it active.

Okay, and what what's up to June 30th?

Uh there's uh another contract out for bid for the yes ma'am.

Okay, so this is just uh extending it until the contract is done.

Okay.

Any questions?

Uh is there a motion?

Um motion to approve 0189.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

The next item is 260301.

All commission districts is a change order.

Um, you can read the numbers for use by the department of facility management.

This contract consists of repair, the contract to concrete and steam deals, columns, connections, steel plates, expansion, joints, waterproofing, new electrical LED lighting, inspection of existing panel boards, plumbing, payback, um, HVAC units, fiber protection, piping, etc.

This request seeks to ratify previously provided.

Contract term increase.

This request also seeks to increase the contract term through April the 30th, 2026.

Awarded to uh rest of time corporation contract increase something.

Yeah.

Yes, ma'am.

This um extension is requested because this this uh parking deck is actually completed, but we're going through some punchless item to make sure everything's done.

So this gives us the opportunity to keep the contractor on contract until we get it done.

Okay.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Okay, if none, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 301.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

That item is approved.

Fleet management.

Uh 260216.

All commissioned this.

This is a corporate agreement, heavy construction equipment and related attachments and technology.

Uh source well contract.

You can read the number for use by the department by uh public works, fleet management, and to be used by public works sanitation.

This request seeks to purchase from the competitively led Stonewell, stonewell, source wheel, contract.

You can read the number for the divisions of one uh John Transport and Transporting Collected Refuge at the Seminole Landfill.

See Division of John Deere shared services, um doing businesses, John Deere, construction, retail sales, care of the equipment, SL LLC, about not to exceed 739,227.

Good afternoon, madam chair and other commissioners.

Um this piece of equipment is um it's the John Deere dozer.

It's a part of the normal replacement process for this particular equipment, and it is to be used at the landfill for sanitation, and it's pretty much a trash mover.

It's pretty much a trash mover.

It just kind of pushes trash from one area to the next.

And how this contract is for how long?

It's um it's just to purchase the vehicle.

It's not a it's purchase through the source wheel contract, but it's just to make a purchase.

Okay, I got you.

Okay.

Commissioner.

I mean, I'm sorry, let me get mine.

Okay.

How many of these John Deere vehicles do we have or waste handlers?

Oh wow, how many?

Um, I'm not sure.

Well, the reason that I asked is just because we're replacing one and just trying to see if that is the norm one at a time because, say we have 10 others or so that can continue to do the work while we're replacing this one.

Well, normally it's replaced based on um when it's eligible to be replaced.

So based on when it's purchased, so we don't just like replace a whole bunch of them.

It just they have to be eligible for replacement, like have to be in service for a certain period of time before.

They asked the question, how many do we have?

Yeah, yeah, here's the thing.

Yeah, we do have multiples of the same units.

Okay, but it all depends on the usage and the maintenance cost.

So when we identify to replace it, we don't just replace it because it's got this many years, it's got to have this much maintenance cost, this many hours, and caused us trouble.

So we play replace them not all at the same time.

Gotcha.

Quite often.

We get as maximum life we can out of each one of them.

Okay.

I yield back.

Uh you just can't stay away from fleet.

I'm always gonna be here to support for it.

Yep, he's always here.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm glad he's here.

Did you have anything?

Uh no questions.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Terry, I'm trying to also get to um try to review.

Oh, yeah.

Passover.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask, um, because I know we had talked about this in a previous um uh like excavator bulldozer type thing.

So um, and we talked about electric versions, but I guess John Deere now has a diesel hybrid.

Uh they call it the A50 X-tier dozer.

Because I know we're under containment at the landfill, and EPD doesn't want us to add any more equipment because it would increase pollution.

But if we could think about ways we could bring in vehicles that have lower emissions, okay.

I'm sure we could look at it.

Okay.

You know, it's it's not something we have, but I'm sure it's if it's available, we can look at it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0216.

Second.

All in favor.

All right.

Okay.

The next item is 2602 42, and it is a cooperative agreement.

Uh class 4, 8 chatties, and uh cabs with related equipment, accessories, and uh services for use by public work fleet management.

This request seeks to purchase from the competitive source wheel contract number.

You can read the number for purposes of one 2027 flatbed um TI Trout model uh T 280 for the purpose of performing emergency tie repair and replacement as well as a routine time maintenance in various departments throughout the county.

Awarded to Kenwork Truck Company doing business as MHC Kenworth Atlanta amount not to exceed 160, 875.

Okay, again, this is uh another um normal vehicle replacement for this particular type of vehicle.

It is for the uh the tire services.

Um they use this tie this particular vehicle um for to do emergency repairs on the road and um to with within the county.

Are there any questions?

Okay.

Did we have uh similar contracts come across our desks a couple months ago?

This sounds familiar.

The four-eight chases and caps.

I don't believe so because we only we don't have that many.

Did we have one?

Hi, Commissioner.

Um, I just wanted to clarify that that is actually a cooperative agreement, so we list what the name of the cooperative is, and then we go into detail about what we're using that agreement for.

So in this instance, it's for that that particular vehicle for tire repair.

Okay, thank you.

I see.

All right, I yield that.

Thank you.

Do you have anything?

Okay.

Um Sherry.

Okay.

Uh, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0242.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

I okay.

I'm gonna skip over the page four.

Um 260292.

Uh change order.

All commission districts change order number eight, the contract number one zero zero zero eight four six public sector agreement for Oracle Cloud Services, sold source for use by the department of innovation and technology.

This contract consists of all products and services for the county auto obstacle uh cloud system services platform.

This request seeks to increase the contract funds through December 31st, 2028.

The scope of work to implement the Oracle permitting and licensing platform, water to Oracle, Oracle, Zoom, American Inc.

Amount not to exceed 6, 79, 710.

Has this come back for my yes, ma'am.

It came back this morning from audit to proceed.

Has it was it substantiated?

Yes, it was yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, good afternoon, madam chair, commissioners.

Uh, this change order supports the long-awaited uh modernization of planning and sustainability's legacy in for public sector system, which is IPS by implementing Oracle permitting and licensing.

Opal, the cloud solution designed to streamline permitting uh licensing, code enforcement inspections, and planning operations.

Uh Opal operates within the existing Oracle Cloud ecosystem, which also has our uh financial system as well as HCM system, and it provides embedded analytics, AI driven capabilities, and quarterly innovation updates that come with the the Oracle patches.

And it also integrates with GIS, our AD for single sign on different payment processors as well as on base Tyler IS World benchmark as well as accounts payable in GL.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Do you have any questions?

Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so this is for the planning department's use.

Yes.

Okay.

Um how many times have we up have we changed systems?

And recently the marine.

Second, second change.

So we've had three different systems.

This would be the second system in the last 13 years.

The second system.

Okay, so we've been using was it project docs?

What's the one we did?

In for public sector ISO.

Oh, and for you did say that, okay.

So and this is on just the permitting and license licensing side.

So for business licenses, business permits, just for sort of the um code enforcement.

Code enforcement, okay.

Um I know you're looking at it from an IT lens.

Um, and I assume all the user departments are happy about this upgrade, or seems like it's got new features.

Yes, they were involved uh in the requirements gathering as well as the demos last year.

The demos we looked at Tyler, we looked at Oracle as well as a few other companies, and yes, they're all in agreement that this is the best product to move forward with.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So we should assume by accepting this new permitting system, their work productivity will go up, usurability, everything, like it's gonna be improved.

That's the plan, yes.

Okay, it's always the plan.

Any new system?

Thank you.

Okay, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0292.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you.

The next item is uh gonna skip down to 26025.

Is the change order all districts?

The contract number one three two five one two seven, change order number four to contract.

You can read the contract numbers, landscape maintenance services for public grounds, annual contract with two options to renew for use by the department of facility management, public work sanitation, and recreations, parks, and cultural affairs.

These contracts consist of providing landscape maintenance services for the counties, public grounds.

This request seeks to ratify the uh increases the contracts to pay for outstanding invoices.

This request also seeks to extend the contract term through June the 30th, 2026, awarded to Oddscape Inc.

The Simmons Group and let us love your line.

Total amount not to exceed 64, 854.

Good evening.

Good good.

Good afternoon, madam chair.

Uh, yes, this contract is for um landscaping.

So we're uh asking to add to the contract cap so we can pay invoices and also to extend the contract to June 30th, 2026, um, to cover the cost of uh landscape maintenance during that time, and we're also asking for 170,000 to be added to the contract for the MARTA station beautification project that's under Commissioner Terry.

And that's uh within the 644,000 Yes.

Uh we're also asking uh parking recs is also asking for money and also sanitation is asking for uh additional funds to be added to the contract.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

For the outstanding invoices that need to be paid, uh, was there an increase in the fees or rates that weren't originally calculated for I don't believe there was an increase in the rates.

I think there was probably more work done on the contract than was anticipated, so the funds ran out sooner than we thought.

Okay.

When we do additional projects or we do additional flowers or uh pine straw or whatever increase the cost, those are additional services.

Okay.

And those additional services are how do we determine what additional services will be provided outside the scope of what we have the capacity to pay?

It's it's any upgrades to whatever's not in the contract.

I mean, the contract's basically a uh mowing, cleaning, weeding, and uh services like that, but it's not it doesn't include you know planting the flowers every year.

It's just the maintenance cost is just the basic maintenance and cleanup and uh trimming of trees and bushes and stuff.

Okay.

Essentially, what I'm asking is are we purposefully not including those additions in the contract, or is someone making special requests that we're trying to accommodate?

Yeah, we're we're doing it on a like an all-or-cart basis because we basically we don't have the funds to do um a high-end service.

Okay, so we're having to pick and choose.

We basically have um the critical sites like downtown, Maloof, the Annex, the courts, uh juvenile justice, public safety, our police and fire headquarters, they get more of a higher end service than a lot of the other buildings.

Okay.

And how much is this beautification project that you just mentioned?

Do you know?

It's 170,000 for the Marta Station.

It's a planting of trees in these boxes over at the Marta Station.

Which one?

Indian Creek?

Kensington.

Okay.

Yeah.

All righty.

Thank you.

I yield back.

You have anything?

No.

Okay.

Okay, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0255.

Uh second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

And let's turn over to page uh five.

And um the bottom of the page 260393, and that is um change order.

Um commission district change number change order number 10 to contract numbers.

You can read the numbers, commercial generatorial services, multi-year contract for use by the Department of Facility Management and Recreations Park and Cultural Affairs.

These contracts consist of the uh development management and monitoring of high quality, commercial janitorial cleanup, custodial uh services and day porters.

This request seeks to increase the contract term and funds through June 30th, 2026, order to bill and maintenance services, clean star national inc and a action janitorial total amount not to exceed 984, 786.

Uh this contract's being extended.

We're still working on the RFP, it's still in process to get uh new vendors, but we're just seeking to increase the contract to June 30th, so we can complete that.

Okay.

You got any commissioner Terry.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0390.

I'm sorry.

0393.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that's approved.

Thank you.

Now we're gonna turn to page um six.

And at the bottom of six is two oh two six zero one seven six.

And um that is uh a change order, all commissioned districts to contract.

You can read the contract number, mailing equipment supplies, and maintenance services.

You can read the number for use by the department of voter registration and elections.

This contract consists of utilizing the competitively led state by contract for annual mailing and maintenance services for voter registration and elections.

This request seeks to verify the previously provided contract term increase.

This request also seek approval to increase contact contract funds in terms through June the 30th, 2026.

Amount not to exceed 10,000 dollars.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

This um will uh change order will allow us to um continue with the essential mailing services that we have through the uh special election March 10th, which is next Tuesday, and then any uh if there's a subsequent uh runoff election for that House District 94 race.

Um we are in the process of identifying a new vendor, which is why the terms are we're requesting our own are only through June 30th.

So we are working with procurement and um doing our due diligence and research to determine what uh how we were proceed and and with with which vendor um for these mailing services okay.

I'm sorry.

Um okay, as there are motion, make a motion to approve 0176.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

All right, okay.

And Madam Chair, I I did have an additional question about the previous item we covered.

May I go back and ask that one?

Yeah.

So if we go back to 2026 0393, which was for maintenance that we just discussed.

That we just approved.

Oh, that we just approved.

Um, with facilities, can you come back up?

So I'm I'm looking at this item, and some of the details read that for 737,000 dollars, it covers East DeCap Senior Center, Sugar Creek, and Mystery Valley Golf Course.

But for 165,000, it's supposed to cover Wesley Chapel Library, Harrison Library, Chapel Hill, Arabia Mountain, Decat Memorial, Mason Mill, Flat Shows, Briar Lake, Shoal Creek, 2, Bouldercrest, Lithonia, Kittridge, NH Scott, Lucia Sanders, Midway, and then NH Scott Recreation Center is listed again.

How is that possible?

You've got so I think some of this falls under facility, some part uh falls under park and rec.

So I'm not sure what the difference in the services are.

Uh some people have day porters, some have just um maybe night cleaning.

There might have to look in more detail to see what it is, but there is a difference in services.

Okay, can you share that?

Because that's a significant difference.

For 165,000, it looks like maybe 12 locations are covered, but for 737,000, we get one senior center and sugar creek and mystery valley golf courses.

Okay, yeah, I can get that information to you on how it's been.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I would think it would depend on on the services.

Yes, the offer required and the department that is under.

Yeah, so if you could get that information.

And the reason it's a concern because it doesn't say maintenance for the entirety of the golf course.

This says janitorial, cleaning, and custodial.

So there's only so much you you could do at a golf course as compared to all of those other many facilities.

Yeah, I understand.

And it could be the difference in the hours and the time of day, too.

I'm I'm not sure.

I'll just have to check and provide that information to you.

Okay, and I want to make sure we're providing the same level of service because I know what midway looks like as by my house.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

And if you could get that information before the commission meeting next Tuesday, okay, so you can discuss it with her, and you may want to share it with all of the commissioners so that we don't have to spend an extraordinary amount of time in the meeting.

All right, that's uh I will thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And um, let me see, and I think the last one that I have for priority is 260199.

And I think the last one that I have or a priority is 260199.

All commission districts is a change order.

Number four to contract number one three zero nine eight seven one commercial printing services voting signs.

Emergency for use by the Department of Votal Registration in elections.

This contract consists of the purchase of voter location signs.

This request seeks approval to verify a previously provided contract term increase.

This contract also seeks approval to increase the contract term through June the 30th, 2026 to continue services awarded to Mr.

Nice Print contract term extension on.

Yes.

So this is um this request is for the vendor that we're currently utilizing for the uh large commercial size signage, usually that we see outdoors at the locations.

There's currently um an intent to bid underway, and so we and anticipate having the recommendations from purchasing um regarding you know next steps with entering on executing an agreement for the remainder of the year.

So this gets us through again the special election and the subsequent one-off.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any questions?

Okay.

So uh if none, is there a motion?

Um motion to approve 0199.

Second.

Okay.

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, this item is approved.

Thank you so much.

And Mr.

Um Mr.

C L, I would suggest, and I and I'm not, and I don't know, but um, I would assume maybe some of these items are not getting to purchasing in time for them to go out and bid, so that there is um no extension necessary because I'm seeing a lot of extensions that could be prevented if you know things was going to purchasing and everything is going correctly.

Sure.

So that we don't have to deal with yes, yes, and madam chair, something that we have uh implemented as recently as last week, quite frankly, is uh requesting uh purchasing plans from each department.

So they'll be getting that information into purchasing so that they can map out a year's worth of here's what's going to get purchased and ensure that we assign the right resources.

So we hope to diminish that in the future.

Okay, thank you so much.

And uh with that, um, I'm gonna go to charter review.

Uh they're getting ready.

I said Passover was crossover, but we are having a Passover also.

Uh but um, yeah.

So um John, can you come up and get us through that?

I think we have four items that we need to complete so that we can get this.

Is that correct to the legislature?

Is that correct?

Uh Matthew, no, it's not correct, so I'm not right.

Okay, I'm sorry.

So Madam Chair, at my request, you all skip section three of the memo, which is the section that outlines those recommended changes that we do not believe can be implemented by home rule and would need to be referred to the general assembly.

While those from our perspective are clear that they they sit within the state's power and not yours.

We still have obviously want your feedback on whether you want to recommend those changes at the state level.

So, in addition to the few items we have left in section four, we do still have to tackle section three that begins on page seven of your document.

Okay.

And um how many of those do we have?

I think there's only five or six of those.

I think we can move through them pretty quickly because again, there's not much question on what has to be done to accomplish them.

The question is simply whether there are changes you all support.

Okay, so John, are you are we ready to discuss those?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

We will start with on do you you both you have two documents?

The memo and then the red line.

Yes, sir.

Do I so we will be on page 14 of the memo section 27 open records officer?

Uh and that is uh okay.

On the red line version is page 50.

And this is a completely new section.

Um it recommends the creation of an open records officer for the county.

Uh the amendment clarifies the open records officer language.

If this and the law comments on this, or is if this gives power to either the BOC or the CEO to appoint independently, then it changes the powers and will require state action.

Uh Madam CEO approved the concept, approves of the concept of establishing an open records officer, but does not believe this is needed in the org act and is already within the CEO's general powers.

So and just to follow up on that, in my conversations with Madam CEO, it was her position that in the administration of the government, she could already create this position.

Uh I think the Charter Review Commission was of the impr uh uh uh you know believes that this is of such importance that it needed its own section.

Uh that's why we had it kind of pulled out as maybe it is within the powers, maybe it isn't.

I do agree uh that the CEO could create an open records position under existing uh law.

Um the question would be if they want if she wanted to create a open records department that would require a vote to create a department, right?

But here it simply says that she would create the position.

So it is arguably within her powers.

The question is really whether you all support that being uh rising to the level of importance that it be inserted in the org act.

Okay.

Um just coming from my municipal experience.

Um the city clerk is responsible for can you Yeah.

Uh coming from my municipal experience, the city clerk was typically designated as responsible for making sure open records requests are effectively done.

Uh is there any reason why our county clerk's office wouldn't be able to handle that?

All I can say is that that's not currently how it's set up.

Right now, every department has its own custodian of records.

There is no centralized open records officer here in the county, and quite frankly, a lot of it often falls to law because of that.

Uh so just speaking selfishly for law, we would we would welcome uh the creation of a position of this nature um to centralize this outside of our office because there's not always a legal question.

Gotcha, okay.

And to the clerk's office, I wasn't trying to throw you under the bus.

I love you guys.

But but it is a question that I've always wondered, and I know from my Norcross days, uh the city clerk would hand it to me for community development type thing.

So that was my question.

Okay.

And this speaks for all of the open records acts, whether it's in the sheriff's department, whether it's from the courthouse, whether it's from So there are specific exclusions for the other elected, uh, the other constitutionally elected officers, the tax commissioner, uh, district attorney, probate judge, sheriff, and clerk of superior court are specifically excluded and would continue to uh deal with their own open records.

So this would make it mandatory.

This would make it mandatory.

The chief executive shall designate as the language proposed by the Charter Commission.

And right now, the chief executive may they certainly could.

I I believe they have the power to create a position of this nature under the existing org act and existing law as it relates to open records, yes.

Okay.

Uh do you have anything?

Um, do you have anything?

Oh, yeah, I just wanted to ask.

Um, so why were the other constitutionals excluded?

They have their own correct requirements under their own correct offices.

Okay.

Um so we okay, so that's separate.

Um I uh do support the idea of an open records officer.

I do believe the system has improved in recent years.

Um thank you to the law department for working through some of those, I think uh delays we had in previous years.

Um I do think this is I like to try to think of the charter review changes as sort of for posterity.

So I try not to look at it too much about what's happening right now, but what could happen 10 or 15 or 20 years from now?

And to me, it does make sense.

Um, yes, it is true the CEO has the power to create the officer now.

Um, however, uh if a future CEO said, I don't care about that, and you know, maybe it does get created, but then it gets repealed.

Um, this would uh in essence create a requirement for it to be there.

It seems like it makes sense.

I mean, I know digital records and it just seems like open records requests are not gonna die down, they're gonna probably just keep being the same, if not more.

So it seems like a work product that is a lot of work, and right now it seems it's kind of sort of spread out, and maybe that can cause some confusion or unalignment or maybe even delays in getting an open record request.

So um I would support keeping this in.

Thank you.

And right now we are subject to the open records act.

Oh, yes, ma'am.

Let's say every county department.

And there are penalties if we do not comply with the open records act.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And so my preference would just leave it as it is.

Uh with the CEO, then uh, and any CEO that comes forth, because I haven't seen any significant problems, rather than law may have to work harder, but sometimes we have to work harder.

I mean, that's the nature of the beast.

You know.

So if there's any other comments, if there's no further comments, uh is there a vote?

I mean, is there a recommendation?

Just a quick question comment.

Is there a way to quantify staff hours, time that's taken for law to administer these, and then what's a reasonable expectation to basis for when CEO does create a uh an officer for open records?

So I could certainly get you that information.

I can tell you that there are several lawyers in our office who spend uh a lot of their time on matters of this nature.

Um, like everything else, it sort of ebbs and flows.

Sometimes we have a lot, sometimes we don't.

Some are more cumbersome than others.

To Commissioner Terry's point, actually, as as documents, as we rely more and more on electronic documents, it actually makes the search more difficult because when we do the search for electronic uh documents using search terms, we often get a very large volume that then has to be sorted through for relevance and then sorted through again for any of the applicable exceptions or exemptions to production.

Um the other thing on open records that I'll just remind everyone is we are in the process of rolling out the GovQA system countywide that will help automate this for individual departments.

So hopefully that will also take the burden off any centralized officer that or or even the law department, uh that that uh software is designed to track uh response times, send ticklers when they're due, uh, as well as uh have sort of template uh suggested responses for those most common requests.

So that should speed up uh and help kind of streamline response times from uh just speaking personally from the law department, it would be helpful to us to have somebody centralized uh to go to um outside of ourselves.

Um, but again, uh the law does not require this, but it does allow it.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so we have consensus here to sort of leave it.

It would be uh comes down.

Yeah, I mean, I'm just saying, oh yeah, I'm just saying, and I would assume it's more as your technology get more precise, then the effort would probably be less because I know even with um with law, you know, when I'm researching is uh much better than it was five years ago for me to research through the uh through technology and it it the capabilities increase every month or two, you know.

So yeah, so I I would prefer letting rather than shell let it be made with the uh and if there's a problem and if there's a need, then that CEO can make the necessary changes.

But once it's in here, it's no changes to make until we change the China, unless the Chinese changed again.

That's my reasoning.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Just wanted to clarify that in the language suggested, we'd want to change the shall to may.

Make the whole section discretionary.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah.

That works.

Okay, for our next section, um, that would be section 28 or organizational act review by commissioners.

This is a completely new section.

Um, it recommends the creation of a future charter review commission.

If established, the commission will meet before January 2029, and every eight years thereafter, uh, the BOC shall appropriate funds and provide staff for the commission home rule, nothing to prevent if a charter review on a different schedule.

Um, if this takes place, if this takes the power from the CEO and or the BOC to call for a charter review on a more frequent or different schedule, then it changes the powers and requires state action.

And madam CEO had no opinion on this provision.

Is it standard where rather than the CEO or the board through the um constituents to decide when another charter review will happen rather than a designated time in the um within the organization?

We've seen it done both ways, ma'am.

I can't say that there's a preponderance uh towards towards this method.

Um the reason we have it here, uh Mr.

Manson is correct, but if you look at the last section, or I'm sorry, the next to last line, it says that the board of commissioners shall appropriate the funds and provide staff, including independent legal counsel, and then the last line says that the request can be made by either the CEO or by resolution of Board of Commissioners.

So that's where we see the shift in powers.

What this says is if the CEO calls for a charter review commission, you all are gonna appropriate funds.

There's no discretion there, okay.

So to us, the way this is written, it would have to be reworded to not shift powers.

Um, but as to your your underlying question, madam chair, we have seen it done both ways where a charter is up for automatic review every so often, and then in other instances it's like ours uh as it exists today, where there's the ability to call for a review, but there's not one mandated.

Yeah, I'm of the opinion where if it becomes necessary by voice of the um citizens of the county or upon uh request the majority of the board.

I I just to say that we're going to oh I'm sorry, to say that we're going to provide every eight years, so to say we're gonna provide funding for a charter review and for independent council.

Um I I don't think it's necessary.

I think just like the citizens uh had input to commissioners and to the state legislature.

I think that um when it's another need for um a review, a charter review, then I think that it will come about like this one did, and at that time we can appropriate the necessary funds and or resources as necessary.

But let me hear from my commissioners and commissioner Terry.

I like the idea of staying ahead of any concerns that may come up.

So I don't agree with necessarily the shell requiring that we do it every eight years, but maybe there's a may there so we can review and determine if we want to provide funding for it to occur.

But I do believe there needs to be uh some bench benchmarks for us, reminders for us to go back and review because as you indicated before, things are transitioning so quickly now.

We do need those forms of support to make sure we're staying on top of any occurrences that could be mitigated through updating the review.

So I I would argue to keep this here, but make it a shell so that we can determine if we will appropriate funding toward it, but we need the reminder.

Okay.

What I think would make sense is after each redistricting, which we have to do every 10 years, is uh after the redistricting, then the charter review would take place.

Um at that point there's been an election that's behind everybody.

Uh and then people are elected officials are needing to reach out to the new constituencies that they may end up having uh when the district boundary lines change.

And so I guess my suggestion would be make it once a decade and do it after redistricting.

So uh redistricting happens by I think April of uh the the first year in the new decad decade.

So by the end of that year, you have to start the new redistrict or the new charter committee review.

That would be my suggestion.

Oh, thank you, madam chair.

Um I do like that idea.

Um I feel like some of the newer cities, Matt, have like an automatic every 10 years, they have to kind of do their own charter review.

I seem to remember Brookhaven having to do that.

I think it's like just built into their charter.

So I like the idea of it just you know being updated.

And if you do it on redistricting, it's every 10 years in essence.

Although the next redistricting would be in 2031, I think it would.

So, you know, that would kind of get us a little bit quick quicker.

The one thing I might add a caveat to that is the last charter review commission, I think I think they took like, I mean, there was a delay getting it started, so I don't want to like, but it was like three years.

So if if we went with that route where it was gonna be updated every 10 years, um could we have it time bound to say that it has to like like they have to do their work in that year?

So there's like so that way it just doesn't keep dragging on, because I mean you can spend so much time as you know, talking about the details, but if there was like a it would begin by April or whatever, I don't know, whatever makes sense, but it has to be done within a certain time period.

Um and I know that might be hard to let you know, like put into like the constitution here, but um, I'm just worried that it could just drag on and drag on, and then at some point you just talk about something so much that you just you're like, I don't know what to do, I don't know what I should support or what I want to do, which is kind of how I feel right now about charter.

And um I would suggest if you want to do that, it may be done.

Um you know, we have spent so much time on this charter review, so much money.

And if we're not getting it right now, you know, I wouldn't want to go through this every if we don't have to.

I would say may rather than shell.

Okay.

Because we need to look at the circumstances of the situations that are happening then.

I mean, if we're not getting it right now, because when Maloof, Manuel Malou started this, it was no let's do it every 10 years.

Let's do it every five years.

Let's change this list.

So if we're not getting it right now, then it's something wrong with what we're doing.

And I think, hold on.

I think that this is the first charter review that we've had since many malouv.

Isn't that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

And that was in the 80s.

Yeah.

You know.

Don't wait that long.

So we haven't had one since.

So I think, and that was the purpose for me to say I want to take my time.

It wasn't that I didn't want to, I want to go over everything.

I want to be Pacific, and I didn't want to rush it through, because I don't want to do this in 31 again.

I don't feel it should be done in 31 again.

So if anything, I will want to put May rather than shell and keep it going.

But I don't want to commit another administration to say that they're putting this amount of money in and hiring these amount of resources when we need to see where we are when the time now I don't have any problems with tying it to the census.

But I I think it should be a May, not a shell.

And a quick question, Madam Chair.

So the last charter review was um created by executive order of the CEO.

So if we make these changes that we're talking about, would it then just be CEO and Board of Commissioners would have to sort of agree, both agree jointly to initiate the charter review?

That's up to you all the same.

What the language now says is that either the CEO or the board under this suggests a change could call it.

You're correct, sir.

The last one was called pursuant to an executive order.

Theoretically, you all could call one via resolution.

Okay.

So would it be possible?

So I don't know if this is maybe just a way for us to kind of have the two branches working together, but would it be possible for us just to simply say that it would be a May, but that the CEO and the Board of Commissioners would have to like I guess agree to it.

Like I'd hate for it to be like antagonistic.

Like if the board said we want to do it and the CEO said I don't want to do it, then it becomes a conflict, and I think that's what you were getting at.

So is there a way to just say it has to be kind of a consensus on how we do that?

Yes.

That's just uh a thought, madam chair.

Yes, ma'am.

Because this takes a long time, a lot of time.

This takes a long time, a lot of energy.

Then you have people that want to rush it through, and that's the reason that's you can't rush something like this through in a day or a year, because you have to go through a process.

And so I'm hoping that we're getting it right.

And so I'm fine with what you say the CEO and the board and May, not shell.

And on the 10-year redistricting cycle as opposed to the eight year suggested here.

Yeah, but I think it should be the next censor, not this coming censor.

We just spent three years getting this one together.

So I think it should start at the next censor.

I mean, if you want to go by census, or it should start 10 years from this date once it's submitted.

Yeah, it should be here.

I'll be here in spirit.

So commissioners could I'd be hunting, y'all.

Could we could we set it for 41 to begin in 41?

Is that a thing?

Yeah, I mean, 41.

Okay.

Is that fine, Ted?

Yes, it's a good one.

Okay, May.

Okay.

It seemed like there were still opportunities to call it sooner if there was consensus.

We'll make sure that that's the case.

Okay, okay.

This is a suggested schedule.

May.

Okay.

Okay.

Sounds good.

Yes, ma'am.

So just to review, just to make sure we've got everything for that section.

We've got a May as far as how we want the language to start, and then we've got an adjusted schedule based on redistricting or census, which starting 41.

41.

Starting 41.

And then there was one other idea, um, a requirement that they finish the work in that one year.

Do we want to include that in the section?

Finish.

Finish their review.

No.

No.

I mean, you know, I mean, it's hard.

I mean, people like to rush, but if you change in something substantially to benefit the whole, you can't rush it.

Yes, ma'am.

And see, once the charter review have given their recommendations, that's what they are, their recommendations.

And so we have to go through it with other people.

Then we have to go through it with and us within us.

So there was there was one other suggested provision to make sure that the board and the CEO agree to initiate the charter review.

Yeah, that was his okay.

Yeah.

That was, yeah.

The revision and what you have missed was this it has taken us approximately three years to get through this.

It's not because we were trying to delay, but because this is the first charter review since Manny Malu took office.

And if we could not dive into it and do an in-depth review of what we're trying to change, it's no need to change it.

And so if if we're going to change it, we need to have the corporation on the board and the CEO, whoever that may be, you know, to come together and may we may change it.

And so I ask a question.

Thank you so much.

So just so I can understand, yeah, really quickly.

So just so I'm understanding, um, there's a proposal on the table to um make some of the suggestions in May.

Is that what the part that I missed?

Or no, the point that you well, you missed a lot of parts.

Okay, but that in terms of May.

Instead of shall May.

Oh, yes.

Um I'm support of May instead of shall shall obligates.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, where May makes it uh a possibility.

Um but I think I completely agree with you in that to the extent there hasn't been changes and there hasn't been, both as it relates to the charter, but then also different organizational structures in over 20 years, there's a need to do that, and before we do that.

Over 40 years.

Some 20, some 40, but this 40, some others 20.

But uh the point is that it needs to be done um with uh you know the due diligence and not rush through.

So I was one of the um commissioners that supported the changes that needs to be made, but also making sure that we had the proper time and put forth the due diligence to do so.

We're trying to get to it before crossover.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

With that, I yield back to you, madam chair.

Okay.

We're not through yet.

Okay.

Uh what's the next one?

The next section is section 29, pending matters ensures it ensures that pending counting matters continue.

Um it seems that this is more of like a cleanup addition.

This is a brand new section, but so this section just from my perspective, uh codifies what is already in law.

A matter pending, a matter that was approved under the org act isn't going to be undone because of a change in powers or a change in language here.

So this is just a recitation of what I believe the law would already be.

Okay.

Any comments to that?

Comments to that.

Comments to okay.

So it's a cleanup all to make sure.

It is, and it would certainly make it easier for us if the previous action is challenged.

So from that perspective, I would say yes, pleasing to be.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh the next section is section 31, the specific repealer.

It repeals the 1981 org act in its entirety.

And the next two sections we can actually talk about together, the specific repealer and the general repealer, the the general repealer uh repeals any laws out there that are in conflict with the org act, so any other local decab acts that are sitting out there that would uh be in con in conflict with the new org act, the new org act would control, okay?

That's the general repealer, the specific repealer pulls back the old org act and replaces it with the new one.

These are both completely standard provisions.

The reason they're here, I'm trying not to get too esoteric on you, but to the extent the rest of this document changes powers, repealing the old document and replacing it also changes powers, right?

So while these sections are necessary and standard in any legal document, I have them here because they will require that vote if their effect is to change the powers.

I know.

I know, Commissioner Terry, I feel the same way.

But because they are referring to other changes, they will need that vote.

So that means once this gets to the legislature and it is approved, then the old act is no longer an effect.

And arguably once the voters approve, because I think I think where we're headed is where some of these are going to need voter approval.

But those that need voter approval or those that need legislative approval, whatever the case may be, yes, ma'am.

This would replace those conflicting terms.

Yes, ma'am.

And this would be the new one.

Okay.

Let me chair if I may briefly.

Um my challenge here is that um the 1981 approved um establishment would be repealed in its entirety.

Um I would feel better if it said, and I think it would be more pertinent if it's where it specifically conflicts with um the changes as um enacted by the 2026 or proposed by the 2026, but the idea to repeal in its entirety.

But the idea to repeal in its entirety, I'm in that exceptionally vague.

And most times when you're amending it is where there is something that's in conflict with the old, I mean the new conflicts with the old, or vice versa, then you know, specific changes are to um take effect, or you know, certain things are repealed where it's um addressed specifically and what's in new.

The idea to okay.

But just to be clear, what the Charter Review Commission has recommended is a complete replacement.

They while while we're looking at a red line where they change some specific terms, add terms, change numbers, what they have suggested is that the org act be rewritten and replaced in its entirety.

And I have to say because of the way that local acts are done, where they're not codified the same way the changes in general law are, from our perspective, it would be much easier if the entire act were replaced.

Okay.

Okay.

So I understand what she's saying, and I think that um Commissioner Bolton understands, and and and yeah, I understand what uh Commissioner Massine is saying, because it something could inadvertently be left out that was not in conflict.

And and then you got this new document.

So however, you know, I mean, I you know, I like the conflict.

Anything that is not in conflict with the old document rather than Yeah, I'll agree.

I think I have to agree with that because if something is inadvertently left out or conflicts, um and and we adopted a new document getting away with the old document, then I understand.

Um can uh uh Terry, and I know you understand what I'm saying, and I know you understand what Nicole's saying, but if y'all could I mean from what I see, if the sum is left out of that document and we wipe out that document, I mean we could have unintended consequences.

I'm not sure I understand if you're asking me for a question or have you been listening to us.

I have been listening to you.

I know where you are.

Um Yeah, so what once more in a nutshell, what you just said.

And in post here's no, if there's a question.

It's a question.

So in the nutshell.

Right.

So essentially the thoughts in and around um having a specific repealer opposed to just uh making a statement where there may be a conflict between the 1981 and 2006 uh amended act or version, whether or not it be more prudent to just repeal the 1981 or just where there are areas of conflict.

Conflict.

That's what she's saying.

I think having the appropriate language for if there's a necessary repeal as a repealer would be enough.

Addressing it, you're replacing what was done previously with the changes that are made.

That is the intent of this entire process to replace portions of our orders with pieces that are revised, and that will include potentially, depending on where you land as a body, taking pieces that are just removed and not replaced, and possibly adding new pieces that did not exist before.

But overall, you're not replacing the whole thing, so you don't need to repeal it.

You need a repealer to make sure that this new piece is received the right way within the law.

And it'll it'll fit the existing document to form a new version of the organizational act.

Where those areas are in conflict, but not the document itself in its entirety.

Well, yes, you I think the appropriate way to think of it, Commissioner, this gets technical.

It is a new document once you change a piece of it.

So some of the pieces existed in the previous version, some of the pieces may be new, but what we will have if any changes are made is a new organizational act, and it'll have the date of whenever the new changes are put in that act.

And it'll have the date of whenever the new changes are put in that act.

That'll be the new version from that day forward.

So if I may one simple thing I think.

Okay, let me ask you this.

So we're putting the new recommendations into the old act.

Yes, and I want to give you the precedent information.

Okay.

I think that will help you.

If you look at our organizational act, changes were made to the organizational act where previously the CEO presided over the commission meeting and set the agenda.

The act was changed to take the CEO off the dais and to give the commission the power to make its own agenda.

There were a few other tweaks.

That is a new version of our org act.

Some of the pieces existed before that.

Some of the pieces did not.

Right.

But we look at that as the new construct.

And quite frankly, there are arguably needs to adjust other things with it.

Yeah.

I'm just gonna say one, with all due respect to our clerk, there are pieces about our clerk's activity that are rooted in the CEO sitting on the dais and everything happening in one meeting.

And now it doesn't happen that way, but those positions for the clerk remain, i.e.

moving things in certain timetables and the like.

So it's just an example of the precedent.

Okay.

So I understand so you're moving these recommendations that we're making into the original Corona Act.

Correct.

So you're not so then that would suggest you can't repeal the whole act in itself if you're putting parts of it into the old, then if you repeal it in its entirety, then that creates a chance.

Go ahead.

So the reason the provision is here again is because the Charter Review Commission recommended replacing the org act in its entirety.

And that was the recommendation.

Correct.

So that's why it's here.

If you would rather ask the legislature to make changes rather than replacing its entirety, then this section won't be necessary.

But I will say that if the legislature determines that they want to replace the entire org act, this section will be legally necessary.

Okay, this really section, not only that section, but we're discussing every other chip uh section, the recommendations have been made.

So all of them are recommendations, and that's the reason we're going over each and every one of these recommendations.

I understand what she's saying, I agree with what the both of them are saying is that if you if you're putting in, like you were saying, uh attorney, if you if you're putting in the oh, if you put an in the recommendations that we're making into the org act, then anything in conflict will already be there.

I mean, you already have it because you're putting just like you took the CEO off of the presiding as a presiding officer, but you kept the org act.

That's what I'd like to see, because then there's no unintended consequences.

If I may, just to be clear, I'm basing my statement on my observation of your discussion so far.

You have talked about making certain changes and keeping certain things, so that drove my comment.

I happen to agree with Mr.

Welsh, the Charter Review Commission made the recommendation, and that's why it's in front of you.

Right.

But what you've discussed as a body is a little different.

Yeah.

I mean, we've been, I mean, that's been our discussions from day one.

What has been what the recommendations has been, and what our recommendations would be.

Okay.

Yeah, really quick.

Um, so maybe a couple ways look at this.

Um maybe we don't necessarily have a direct recommendation for this section, and we let the legislature sort of figure out what's gonna be best through their process.

No.

Um I'm not, but I am not saying I'm still not seeing, and maybe we can get a written response from the law department.

I'm not seeing the practical rationale for doing it one way or the other.

To me, it just seems at the end of the day, we're updating the document and whatever we update it with, and if the voters approve it, that is the org act.

So I don't know, I'm still not seeing the practical issues being raised.

Is that anything that may have been in conflict or that is not addressed from the original document?

And if you repeal it, you could have adverse consequences.

And I'm I'm in agreement with her because the whole document was not revised.

There were portions of the whole document.

Right.

And I guess my response to that, if if there was something that was found to be in conflict, whether whether we include this repealer or not, then the result will still be the same.

We would seek to address that conflict in a future charter update.

No, not based on what their recommendation would be to repeal the whole thing.

Right.

Well, I'm just asking whether we repeal the whole thing or not, if there is a conflict in the future that we discover, because hopefully the review has figured out all the potential conflicts and we've addressed them.

But we might have missed the thing.

We haven't addressed the entire org act.

Oh, I thought we that's what we were doing.

We're on section 33.

Isn't this the last section?

Are there more sections we're not doing?

Matt.

Okay.

I don't believe that they made change recommended changes to every single section, sir.

But again, we do still have section three of the memo to cover, which are those sections that will require state action.

Right.

Okay.

Well, I'm I was trying to get, and as I stated, I was trying to get through it.

But like I said, this is a complicated document that would pretty much will control the actions of this government as we move forward.

So you can't just do it in a nutshell.

I mean, you you you you have to go through it.

You have to be detailed, because I don't want to do this every five years, even every 10 years, because it's something that we have to go through.

And I think it was thank you for bringing up that point because with my brilliant legal knowledge, I skipped it.

And so thank you.

Thank you, co-counsel.

And so uh, yeah, so we'll have to continue this, you know.

I was trying to move it so that we could get it to where it should be, but we're not there yet.

And maybe we can get it within the next section, but we're not there next.

So I'm gonna have a um, I'm gonna have a special call, hopefully um sometimes this week, and see what we can do on it.

And I'd like to thank the chair of ERPS for allowing me uh some of your minutes.

Okay, so with that, um just real quick.

Wanted to make sure that we were holding all other items in committee.

There were seven other items that we did not adjudicate today.

We're gonna hold all those in committee, and then we'll come back and staff will work with the chair on a special call meeting date.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you.

Okay.

Is there a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay.