Good afternoon, DeCav.

I am Marita Davis Johnson, and I represent the I mean I'm chair of the ops committee.

My uh colleagues that serve with me are Commissioner Robert Patrick and Commissioner Ladina Bolton.

Um with that said, uh commission Commissioner Patrick, have you had an opportunity to uh read the minutes for the March the third 2026 meeting?

Um motion to approve 0364.

Okay, um second all in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

That um item is approved.

Um we're gonna skip around just a little bit uh today.

I usually have my presentations at the end, but I do want to have the um presentation on the um I don't know one second operation assessment.

The uh county operations assessment.

So who's presenting that?

Um thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We're gonna be getting back keyed up.

Um as we speak, uh I just sent the PowerPoint to Mr.

Miller.

Um, but the presentation is going to be led by uh Miss Lakeisha Cise of the Momentum Firm.

And what we have is um have we passed out hard copies?

Uh I don't believe so.

No, so we'll make sure to get you hard copies of the presentation because there's about uh 15 slides.

We'll do about a 15-minute presentation with a host of addendum at the back.

Um, and so what she will be doing is walking through the progress made to date as well as where we're going to be going over the next several months and how this will culminate in our plans for 2027, uh, which will um you know be a large part of the implementation of a lot of what's going on.

So let me see where we are um with the PowerPoint.

Okay.

And with that, Miss CSA will come up and she'll begin while they key up the PowerPoint.

Are we ready with the PowerPoint or do y'all need a little bit more time?

Oh, it's they may need a couple of minutes.

They may need a couple of minutes.

So while we are waiting on them to do the PowerPoint, we'll start with the couple of uh agenda items.

And also uh we have present with us today, uh Commissioner Ted Terry, Commissioner Michelle Lone Spears, and uh Commissioner Ladina Bolton has joined as a committee member.

Okay, so the first item that um pass of okay.

The first item that we will take uh today will be uh item 20 26 0388 and um Mr.

CO just let me know when you were ready.

Uh resolution to accept G D O Tentative Allocation of State funding assistance associated with the project for the um airfield cracked seal and uh remaking of the DeCab Peace Tree Airport.

There is a matching call to the county's on its way.

Okay.

Hey, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Yep.

Uh so yes, so this is this um the crack seal and remarking project is for uh the airfield.

Um this will provide uh some much needed um runway uh ceiling and repair, and then also um as it's been a little while since we've remarked the airfields.

This will provide fresh fresh paint for the airfield markings all for the entire airfield.

Okay, and what is the matching cost of the county?

So 25%, which our uh our matching cost is 702,478 84.

Okay.

Are there any questions?

Can you repeat that?

You said the total is 936,000 and the match is 25% of that.

That is correct.

So the the 25% is over $700,000.

25% is yes.

That's correct.

Yes.

So yes.

So I'm sorry, our cost is um is yes, two two twenty.

I'm sorry, two thirty-four is our cost.

Okay, apologies.

Apologies, I got that backwards.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, is there a motion?

Um motion to approve 0388.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

Uh, we ready?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

At this point, I'd like to introduce Lakisha Cisset uh with the momentum firm, and she will walk everyone through the um uh update on the operational assessment.

If you'll recall, work was done last year by uh Maldon and Jenkins.

Uh we brought in Ms.

Hussey uh in the summer uh to lead this effort and her responsibility is working with uh about 18 departments going through 250 plus uh um observations from Malden and Jenkins and helping us to move the organization forward.

Ms.

Sissey.

Thank you, Zach.

Good afternoon, almost said morning.

Great to be back.

Nice to see you all.

Thanks for having me.

Um as COL Williams mentioned, Lakeisha Sasse, managing principal of the momentum firm, and I'm here today to provide an update on the implementation of the operational review and performance assessment as it pertains to the departments associated with the ops committee.

Um we were awarded the contract back in September.

Um made some promises at that time to ensure we came back to uh keep the board updated.

Um, and this is the second time we'll be doing that.

We came in uh December and in the ops committee.

We came in December, we provided written reports to the other committees, but we'll be speaking with them all uh over the next two weeks.

Um we have improved the report uh this time around.

I believe um Commissioner Davis Johnson asked us for additional insight and information back in December.

So uh we have pulled out more or details about the status uh recommendations and some of the supports required um uh from departments.

Do we have a hard copy of your presentation?

Yeah, coming.

Okay, you may continue.

Awesome.

So uh what I'll talk through today is I want to share uh some of the uh new operation countywide operational goals that uh we've defined throughout this process.

Uh I'll provide an overview on the implementation management process that we've designed and have been um implementing uh as well as the status of the uh recommendations and where they stand across the departments that are associated with the ops committee, and we'll also I'll also provide a high-level report um on key insights across the various departments in this committee.

The written report that you all received has an appendix where you'll see the more detailed insights that are specific to each department.

Um, but I'll spare you all those details um socially here today.

Okay.

All right, so some of the uh transformation goals, and this is the overarching strategy as uh COL Williams mentioned.

We are working and supporting uh multiple departments in the county with implementing over 250 very different, some very complex recommendations.

Uh, but overall, these are the uh goals that we are attempting to achieve with the implementation of these recs, becoming a high performing org, optimizing costs and resources, delivering better community outcomes, improving customer satisfaction, and gaining operational uh efficiencies and embracing innovation.

So beyond just defining those operational goals, we went ahead and also articulated what success could look like.

And so these are some of the key results that we're looking to achieve as these recommendations are in the process of being implemented across the board.

Some of the things that you might uh you know notice or realize this year are our attempts to reduce year over year uh internal audit findings and open issues through this process, improving or increasing customer satisfaction scores, um achieving cost savings, right?

Some of the things that you might uh you know notice or realize this year are our attempts to reduce year over year internal audit findings and open issues through this process, improving or increasing customer satisfaction scores, um achieving cost savings, right, uh across major categories where feasible as a result of some of these operational improvements from optimizing technology, finding opportunities to automate processes, to uh moving towards a more data-driven government where uh 100% of departments will be reporting KPIs.

Right.

Um this prioritization matrix here is just a reminder that you know, across the board, again, there's over 250 recommendations and a variety of new initiatives that are also emerging and are being tracked, and um prioritization for the purpose of you know, timeline planning is important.

We are focused um on the top quadrant, the quick wins uh and major projects, quick wins defined as projects or initiatives that have high effort, I'm sorry, that have high impact but require you know low effort.

Um in the major projects, we know that they're extremely impactful, but may require some uh additional effort.

Uh those are those two categories are the focus of what we're tracking in the roadmap.

Okay.

This slide just articulates the implementation management process that we have designed and that we're currently managing.

Um, like I said, we're assessing the ongoing progress, convening departments on a regular basis.

Uh, we're managing change and resistance across the board, and we're reporting to you all quarterly as well as the CEO.

Um, our research design, right?

What we're looking to answer is you know, we're looking at the status, we're looking at the projected timeline and the rate of progress.

We're asking for the reasoning behind blocked or rejected recommendations.

We're trying to understand what types of additional supports are required.

And like I mentioned, we're tracking cost savings, we're tracking um the number of recommendations met across the ver the different categories.

This um is a dashboard, this is a dashboard view.

Um we are tracking all 266 uh recommendations in a platform called Smartsheet.

Um so we've tailored and customized it to this project, and what you're looking at is a reflection of the status of uh all 18 um departments that were included in the assessment.

So you'll see the 266 recommendations there.

So far across the board, departments are reporting that 59 have been met.

There are 11 recommendations blocked, and over 123 require some sort of additional resource to further the implementation of it.

Great.

Gonna now move on to some of the the committee specific insights for um this is a combined insights for animal enforcement services, the CAV 311 help desk facilities, fleet, and IT.

Okay.

So this is a dashboard view combined for the departments I just um mentioned that are uh reporting to this committee.

56 total recommendations here, 11 met, two blocked, and over 24 requiring additional resources.

More insight.

Uh when we looked at the top challenge areas across the departments that are associated with this committee, we noticed governance issues or structure challenges and technology limitations were the most common.

As I mentioned, we asked about the projections on um, you know, when some of these initiatives would be complete.

And what is interesting, what's an interesting makeup about this here is that uh a significant portion of departments reporting to this committee state that they are unsure when their recommendations can be implemented.

You do see some steady projected progress, you know, across you know the months, March, April, May.

Um, but you know, you also notice that there's some you know reporting of projects, timeline estimates around 2027 and beyond.

What we what me and my team are gonna need to do um in the next month or so is work with these departments and this community, this committee and understand how we could clarify the target target deadline dates.

Uh, we're not sure if the reason why they're not confident in mentioning a date is because of some resource blocking, but we'll uh we'll further investigate.

Um Commissioner Davis Johnson, you asked in the last time we came to the ops committee if there were any other types of things that departments need at the moment to progress their recommendations beyond funding.

Um, and so this is a breakdown of that.

Um, in addition to funding, uh, they also mentioned, and this is across the board, cross-departmental support uh to implement these recommendations as well as training as the top three resource needs.

All right, some insights, um, some qualitative insights.

So this is specific to again the departments that are reporting to this committee that were included in the assessment.

Um, we're noticing progress is concentrated in a few departments.

So uh most of the completed recommendations to this point are referenced coming from animal enforcement services and IT.

Um, you know, uh departments like facilities and fleet uh still have in this group the most recommendations marked as not started.

Um this may be uh due to the need for more assistance executing recommendations, so such as the fulfillment of their resource needs.

Um is actually an insight that we found.

I went back to the data to try to confirm the departments reported it in this way.

Um, knowing that you know the budget processes among us, um among out of the 12 recommendations that were indicated to require additional funding.

In this last survey report, which was administered at the top of this month, departments in this committee mentioned that over 10 out of the 12 were marked not approved in the FY26 budget.

Um this may be correlated to why several items are either marked as 27 and beyond, left blanked, or remain um not started.

Um, and then the biggest challenge identified uh relate to org structure challenges, that's a loaded category because it includes things from resource constraints to governance challenges.

Um nonetheless, this is an area that we are prioritizing for transformation this quarter.

All right, last point, um, just sort of a summary across the board.

I did, you know, make mention about the departments associated with this committee.

Uh, but these are just this is just a March 2026 implementation summary um since December, and we are asking for updates uh in writing through a survey from departments every other month.

So this is the second time we have uh received feedback since December, and there has been an improvement or an increase in recommendations that have been met since December, so that's great.

Uh we are seeing that cross-departmental support, additional funding, and third-party assistance remain those areas across the board where departments say they need support.

Um, to many departments were unsure of the costs associated to implement some of their recommendations.

So this is an area where we're gonna lean in um from a management consulting support perspective.

Um, and then the last two points that I'll call out.

Let's see.

Um clear path to completion.

We already addressed the budget.

So 24% of recommendations across the board depend on additional funding supports.

Um, and so there will be a more definitive list of recommendations that can be accomplished this year now that the budget has been approved.

Um last point I'll make is that you know what comes next.

When we look at a at the 10 challenge areas that emerged in this assessment, the top three are governance issues, org structure challenges, and technology limitations.

And these are the three foundational areas where we will be focusing on managing project portfolios and change um in this next quarter.

So um I will pause there uh just to take any questions, and hopefully you all have the the written document now.

Okay.

Thank you so much for that presentation.

Are there any questions or concerns from committee members?

And I see.

Commissioner Baba Patrick Sand.

Thank you, madam chair.

Hey, uh, welcome.

Thank you for coming back uh with the update.

Um, when you say that there's budgetary challenges for, I think it was 24%.

Um, I thought our budget that we adopted was intended to address many of those concerns.

Is there a disconnect between what you're needing and and what we've approved for the budget?

Um so so this is all self-reported from departments.

So they noted that some of their recommendations that they requested um budget to support were not um approved.

So I think we could look at uh if you all like, we could, you know, do a deep dive and try to pull out specific examples.

I think they're just 10 out of 12 for this committee.

Uh so we could do that and follow up with more details.

But um, COO Williams, did you want to, you know, add to that point at all about this current budget and um operational recommendations?

Sure.

So as it relates to any of the requests are related to capital is something that's going to be coming uh to the board probably in the next, hopefully in the next 60 days.

So that's not going to be included here.

And I believe a lot of this information was also captured prior to the approval of the budget.

Okay.

So there'll be some reconciliation, but there will be a number, you know, a certain amount of things that were requested in the budget that were not included.

Um and so we will evaluate what's the best way to achieve those.

Is there something other than money that can help us um address some of these issues?

Uh, Ms.

Cisay uh mentioned organizational uh issues.

I think uh there will be a certain amount of uh reorganization around priorities that's going to help us become more efficient.

There will be a certain amount of um quite frankly, centralizing some business operations and the decentralizing some business operations that will also assist in uh us uh uh achieving some of these objectives.

So it's gonna be an ongoing process and and lots of conversations that will be taking place.

Is is there a for instance that you can sort of give us an idea, some insights on to the what's being considered for operational changes or things that you think are gonna be more in the capital area versus I guess what are needed for daily operations.

And and just from my perspective reading through on this, um I don't believe code enforcement was under options, I think it was under PECS, but I do remember from code enforcement there were several items that some of the basic things were just making sure everyone has the same technology, same phones interact with one another.

Are those some of the things you're looking at or those just gives some insights?

Yeah, so one of the big things I'll just uh address as it relates to technology in the budget, the board approved about a six million dollar allocation to replace the planning, um I call it planning, but planning code, um, a number of operations use that uh software.

So we're going to see upon the full implement implementation of that a lot more efficient operation, um, not only for the internal staff but for the using public.

Additionally, we're working on a software for uh 311 um that would help in the same manner.

So you know, software, when I say capital in some instances, it may mean software as opposed to uh facilities and those types of assets, but you know, all of that will be part of the conversation.

Okay.

And I know that in years past we had talked about the idea of a C click fix.

Yeah, but since you mentioned 311, is there a at least a thought to the idea of having an app that our residents can use to report code, you know, code enforcement potholes?

Yes, as so as we pursue um the uh upgrade for the 311 software, we would definitely have some sort of a three or a C click fixed type of component.

Um we're looking at a lot more artificial intelligence that will help uh streamline certain processes and and reporting of issues, assigning it to uh various uh business units and tracking.

Uh so those are the type of things.

And I think um, and at some point, I guess in PACS when we will present on what we're doing in planning and sustainability, you'll see really a complete revamping of how that has been operated.

Okay, all right.

Thank you, Zach.

And thank you, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have anything?

Um Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just have a few questions where you mentioned some of the efforts were blocked.

Can you just expound on that a bit more?

What do you mean?

Sure, let me see if I could go back and reference a slide or dashboard page.

So um the implementation status breakdowns are, you know, it's either recommendation met, blocked, not feasible slash rejected, in progress or not started.

So you'll see that um, you know, breakdown there of the recommendations that are considered blocked.

Recommendations that are reported as blocked are recommendations that require an additional resource in order to be able to implement it.

So that's where that goes to that slide that shows um the different types of resources that are required.

These would be the reasoning behind why uh recommendations are blocked as are as they are reported through through the departments in this committee.

Um so you'll see here, right?

It's uh additional funding, report as additional funding and a lack of cross-departmental support, and then right behind there actually is a training need.

And so that's what I was referencing that now that uh the report has come out for this cycle and our engagement with these departments in the next month, we can um assist with assist in any way we can with mitigating some of these blockers and challenges to to the extent possible.

And then it's these uh blocked items that potentially were there were requests made so they could be supported in receiving those resources in order to unblock the recommendations?

Some of them, but not all that are blocked are blocked because of funding.

So I just wanted to make sure I emphasize that.

But yes, there that's what the correlation is blocked because additional resources are required.

If there is a if there's an inconsistency or department head believes that the recommendation is not needed, no longer valid, they were given an option to reject the recommendation, and we're taking an inventory.

That those are very far and few in between, by the way, the recommendations that are rejected, but we are taking an inventory of those and the processes to uh escalate them to COO Williams for final determination if they're gonna stay on the roadmap or not.

And like I mentioned, if there are any like drill down additional insights that you all want, because there's just a lot of data that we're we're tracking, happy to follow up with uh specific examples.

So, how is recommendations requiring resources different from recommendations blocked because they're blocked considering they need additional resources?

Let me go back to this.

So the I'm sorry, the so I'm looking at the left um circular chart implementation status breakdown and the survey that we administer every other month.

Uh departments are asked to label their recommendations with the options listed there.

So I'm not sure.

I see blocked.

You said request recommendations requiring additional resources.

Your question?

Yeah, where it says implementation status by department, just above that, the two areas are recommendations blocked and recommendations requiring resources.

Um recommendations require requiring, yes, additional resources.

Right.

And when you were explaining recommendations blocked, that's what you described.

Gotcha, gotcha.

It was blocked because they needed additional resources.

So just trying to get the difference between the two of those.

Yeah, there are some recommendations that are in progress that still require additional resources.

Some departments have partially implemented them, but they cannot fully implement them without perhaps a new role, additional funding, or the simplest thing that we're trying to facilitate and create cross-better cross-departmental collaboration to actually uh get some of this done.

Okay.

That's why you see that number a bit higher to your point.

Yes, thank you for calling it out.

Gotcha.

And for um the items that you indicated, some departments were uncomfortable, uncomfortable setting a date or timeline for complete.

I I don't recall if you said completion or implementation, but in any case, the the question is have those things been started, or is there a strategy to begin them?

And they just aren't certain how long it would take to complete them?

Is that what you were getting at?

Um, we're we're going to uh engage the departments now that this report's come out and like this month and beyond and try to get a more clarity on the reasoning behind why they were not comfortable projecting a completion timeline.

Um I'm sure that it's nuanced and it's gonna vary.

So I would prefer to come back the next time we present to have a more synthesized answer for you.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry.

I what I was getting at is are they attempting to at least initiate them, even though they aren't certain how long it would take to do them and the completion time?

Are they actively working on a strategy to at least start whatever the recommendation is?

With without looking at the data right now, I would say that I believe many of them still are in progress just because of the share of recommendations that are already started and already in progress, I would assume so.

Okay.

And my last question probably would have to be answered by COO Williams.

Um, and it's a piggyback off of what you were just talking about, Commissioner Patrick, when it comes to the budget.

When we were having budget discussions, and even now we we didn't talk about, well, at least I asked in ERPS, but we really didn't talk much about what some of those requests were and how they related specifically to these recommendations.

So I just would like to see that breakdown, and I think that it's unfortunate that we're working through this, but we haven't communicated the relationship between the two.

Is there do you plan to share with us or extract some of those items that were specifically related to this project that came out of the budget so that we can be certain we're actively working toward it?

Yes, I think we could certainly put something together and bring it to the board or to each committee once we get to the point where we concur that it cannot be done without additional resources.

Okay, so and that's the first step.

And I need to really uh miss to say myself and the departments have not sat and really gone through each of these and vetted.

Okay, the thinking is that it is blocked or that we need additional resources.

I wanted to ensure that we apply all necessary brain power and additional existing resources, and only then once we determine that that's insufficient, will we agree that we need uh additional funds and we'll present that to the board?

Okay, and not just the initial funds, uh additional funds, but any requests that were already made, because of course the departments would know they're asking for this because of the recommendation and how you guys have been working together.

But when we see it and the way it's itemized for us, we we don't know what came out of your office.

So um I I think that would just be healthy communication so that we know we're all actively working toward this project we've spent so much on.

Sure, sure.

We we can put that together.

All right, thank you.

I yield back thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a quick couple questions.

Um, thank you, Miss C for the update.

Um, really appreciate that y'all are doing this um because I know it's probably long overdue.

Uh I don't know, Zach, if do you remember the last time there was like an operational assessment like this done?

You've been here the longest.

Not just because your hair is gray.

Exactly.

Um it's gotten greater.

It's gotten greater.

So in the last did we do one?

I'm trying to remember, yeah.

Okay.

It's been a minute.

Yeah, it's definitely been over a decade.

Okay.

Um, so I imagine that what we didn't do at the conclusion is bring in someone to assist us to operationalize it.

Right, because recognizing it.

Everyone has full-time jobs, so that's why we brought in Mr.

Sang.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I think this is a really smart move.

And I imagine that you're encountering some kind of lingering things that have been built up over the years, and you're kind of having to this is maybe some departments sort of first look at why do you do things this way, and what are your SOPs?

And so I uh I are I definitely appreciate that this is very detailed, it's gonna take a lot of time.

So um, for me, just getting the updates and hearing the progress, I think is is great.

Um, this a lot a lot of it really at the end of the day is in the CEO's wheelhouse of like it's running the administration, the government.

So any efficiencies, any um you know, productivity that we can identify, I think is obviously our main interest.

Sure.

Um, the one thing I did want to ask efficiency and then productivity and how those things might interrelate, because you know, my sort of reading of some elements of the way we do things in DeCAB, it's kind of a question of like, do we just need more people?

Like, do we have capacity versus sort of just like actually measuring the productivity of the existing capacity?

And one thing that um we had worked on I think I think two years ago in the ERPS committee was studying sort of different work structures like a four-day work week, uh a more three-two kind of hybrid situation with the the thought that actually it provides sort of one um an incentive to come work for DCAB.

So you kind of have people that are like, oh, I want to work there because they have a greater flexibility in sort of how they work, you know, day to day.

But then the studies that are coming out to me indicate that workers and those environments are more productive.

And so productivity and efficiency, I think maybe you're kind of maybe two sides of the same coin.

You know, are there things that we're just doing that aren't efficient?

But then how do we utilize the existing capacity?

Because I imagine part of this exercise is are we able to save money in some situations?

But if we are if the answer to every efficiency solution is we just need to hire more people, then we're not really saving money, we're actually just adding more to the budget.

So I think that's just one thing that might be interesting to kind of track as you kind of go along.

And yeah, and I would love y'all to look at that four-day work week sort of study, because it seemed like some departments might be open to piloting it out and then actually testing assumptions of you know, can we fill you know vacant positions quicker?

And if we do, we have greater capacity that's already budgeted, and therefore we are being more efficient and productive.

Yes, and I'm just gonna jump in real quick as it relates to the work week.

Um you're probably aware when we brought all the employees back, we did bring them back with the ability to work uh two days from home.

Uh so you know that's still in effect.

Yes, no, that's in effect now, it's as of about 60, 90 days ago.

Okay.

When we rescinded the old executive order allowing people to work from home, we updated and modernized, quite frankly, our work schedule so employees are able to work two days from home.

Okay.

And then three days in the office, and any more than that requires my signal.

So just as a and I'll that's my last question.

Just to acknowledge that I think if that's something that we could track, you know, that that's something that is helping with productivity, that'd be great to know.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And um we'll have uh Commissioner Long Spears, and then we have uh Commissioner Massar that is waiting on the phone.

And uh, you know, we we do have an agenda to go through.

Uh if you all would consider that in your questioning, we have a an agenda to go through as well as two other discussion items at the end.

Hopefully, we'll get to Commissioner Lone Spears.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I wrote all of my comments out so that I would be efficient with your time.

Um I'm on the summary insights ops committee slide number one around the progress is concentrated in a few departments.

You note here departments of facilities and fleet have the most recommendations marked as not started.

We have a new director, Director Gordon.

Have you had a chance to meet with him yet and just kind of pick his brain or kind of elevate to him what's happened so far in this process, and maybe Director Gordon could provide a little bit more insight.

He's been with the county for a long time under fleet, but now he's the big boss.

Yeah.

Yeah, we we did actually convene uh director Gordon.

I think this was back in December, and that was a great meeting to your point, and we got a lot of insight.

Um we received uh feedback and participation this cycle from most from most departments.

There is a slight skew here.

We didn't get an update from is it fleet or facilities?

I think it might be facilities.

We didn't get an update from facilities, so that might be slightly skewing that uh we are we are gonna follow up to see if we can bring their insights in and then update this.

Um I'm trying to go back to the point.

Um marked as not started.

This again is another area of exploration where I don't want to make assumptions.

We just need to go speak to those departments and get a better understanding of what their blockers are because that is somewhat of an anomaly that they have not started.

Thank you for calling it out.

Of course.

So by the time you present again, I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to talk to facilities and it won't be or feel skewed.

Okay, um, my next point is same slide number two, budget uncertainty is likely pushing recommendations into delay or longer term horizons.

So I certainly get that.

That's the environment that we're in now.

But what popped out at me is under number three, the biggest challenge identified relate to org structure challenges.

Then you note that suggesting a concentration of issues related to recruitment, high turnover rates, and vacancies.

And I believe that all three of those issues actually kind of bleed up into that budget uncertainty as well.

So, and the reason I I guess I lift this up is recruitment.

Is it why?

Is it we're not paying enough that position?

Our benefits aren't good enough, which impact the budget if we were to try to approve it.

I believe that the same goes over the same goes for high turnover rates.

Fulton has a higher salary for that position, so they move over there.

Yet again, impacting our budget and that budget and service uncertainty, and a similar note for vacancies.

And so my question is the administration back earlier this year has proposed us to explore, proposed and a desire to explore the potential of a half mill rate increase for housing, animal services, et cetera.

And this might be a COO question.

Are you hoping or is it intended that wrapped up within that proposed half mill rate increase might address some of these budget uncertainty challenges in under the ops committee purview?

Yes, I think well, we look at it really countywide, uh, Commissioner.

So um wherever possible, where there's uns budget uncertainty, whatever we can address in the half mill.

Um we we hope that that is sufficient.

Understand as it relates to recruitment and retention.

Uh, we anticipate that when that's complete at the end of the summer um that will inform what more uh may be needed, whether that's through additional revenue or shifting of revenues or they're sufficient as a result of the half mill.

We'll have to see at that time.

Thank you for that.

And then just um to wrap up one of my stated goals this spring and early summer is to uh re-review.

I did read that ginormous assessment, and it was very well done, by the way, but re-review it through the lens of um looking for like operational efficiencies where we can tighten up our budget so that we don't feel compelled to pursue a half mill rate increase.

And so uh again, I just want to say that was a very good report, but when I first read it, I really was looking for more of like this operational assessment.

I look forward to re-reviewing it to see if I can gleam any areas that we could, and I've suggested this for Fab, is that we could go and determine hey, can we cut here, cut the fat there, so that we can cut the budget down when we don't have to pursue a half mill rate increase.

Thank you very much.

I yield back.

Right.

And just to address that, there's a study being conducted by MGT that may get to some of that.

It's a cost allocation plus a cost containment and revenue enhancement study, and that's ongoing right now.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Massar.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Just briefly again, thank you so much for the update.

Um, because this information is only as good as our ability to actually implement it.

But that being said, um, just looking at um this slide, and I think was number three of that recognized uh decision at that line um it would be vacancies, and so just recently in terms uh with um the recommendations for resources, presumably those are in and around uh in some will be in and around um being able to fulfill or build those vacancies and help with recruitment.

So just um, you know, earlier in the year we spent um 24 million dollars one um or LG million dollars, one temporary and you know um permanent in some instances um employment opportunities, and so when they're just based on that, uh presumably not having an opportunity to really assess um since we've done that, will there be an update or um how will that or how would you expect that to sort of play into things just allocating those monies and providing you know um a revision to be able to meet some of those vacancies and those employment needs commissioner messiah?

One more time, you you mentioned a 24 million dollar allocation earlier this year, and I'm I'm trying to recall specifically what that was aimed at.

So that was aimed at that was a um a budget request, and it was aimed at um providing temporary um and in some instance permanent um opportunities for employment.

So that was money in order to fill roles that we had um need to be filled in terms of employees.

Originally the budget um the request was for 30 million, and then it was an agenda item, and then it was 24 million dollars that was taxed um during a um a substitute.

Yes, and so the board approved the 24 million dollars, and so that again was for temporary, you know, and in some instance permanent um positions within the county.

Yes, ma'am.

So okay, so I got it.

So what you're yes, you're referring to the um contract for temporary employment services.

So when we hire temporary employees, whether it be in libraries, parks, elections, or throughout the organization, but those are the three major business units that hire those those positions.

So I I got and so repeat the the final part of your question.

I understand what you're talking about.

Sure, no worries.

So it was temporary um and in some instances permanent.

So essentially it was ensuring that we had an opportunity to have some of these um vacancies positions filled.

Okay, again, whether it's during a on a temporary basis or um through permanent opportunities.

So as it relates to one of the challenges being vacancies, just curious as to how or interest that are to how we believe the allocation of those funds and the attempts to fulfill those vacancies will actually take place and whether or not you know it's gonna resolve some of the you know the challenges that we have, particularly in that area.

Yes, ma'am.

And since we're talking about you know, implementation of the suggestions that are being made, will we need to do some type of uh or get some type of an update as to see how impactful that is?

Yes, ma'am.

Or you know, had that already been considered in you know, um, the implementation um had that already be considered in conjunction with that 24 million dollars in the um added opportunities in terms of employment.

Yes.

So how will it make a difference?

How impactful will it be?

It will be it will be very impactful, and it speaks to really a philosophy of uh this administration, the CEO and the administration, wherein the the objective, of course, is to get the work done.

So in those instances where there's hard to fill positions, we may find that we're drawing against the temporary employment or temporary service contracts with the various firms to fill positions, whether it's on a temporary basis or a long-term basis, and we also find in certain areas um, whether it's in planning, uh business license, um, you know, facilities that doesn't necessarily matter where we go and fill hard to fill positions with essentially outside entities, so contracting with other um firms to provide those.

So part of our philosophy is to address things as quickly as possible.

Uh, as a matter of fact, uh credit to our uh chief procurement officer, a number of her staff currently are contracted through the national government of uh purchasing professionals, NGIP.

Um, so that is something that we're doing to try and plug holes in the organization.

I can appreciate that.

And so as it relates specifically to the M and J operational assessment report, though.

Will there be a need um for an update as it relates to that being an area of challenge, or how do we expect that?

You know, are they were they aware of it?

And so from I'm speaking specifically as it relates to this report and the implementation, not just in general, but just as it relates to this report since we're using this as a guide um to help assess what we're doing when and how.

Yep.

Yeah.

Commissioner Massai.

So yeah, we are we've built a variety of different um data dashboards, and we have we are tracking uh vacancy rates across the entire county.

Um we have not uh gotten to a point where we have established a cadence on how often uh this data needs to be refreshed, but that is something that we're going to establish in the next couple of weeks.

So the short answer is yes.

We are monitoring um workforce levels uh throughout this process.

And it actually I'll just wrap by quickly saying it connects to what um Commissioner Terry was mentioning around tracking efficiency, productivity, and then comparing that to some of the staffing levels, right?

That is something that we're doing.

Thank you so much.

Uh, you back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I I don't have anything right now for you, but thank you for being here.

We look forward uh to your next uh report to the board.

Thank you all.

To the board, I'm sorry, to the committee.

Okay.

So uh with that, uh let's get into some of our agenda items.

Um I'm going to think we're gonna get through the full agenda.

So we're gonna skip pages if we could go over to page three um item 0243.

Okay, um two four three is um a renewal contract numbers.

You can read um the services, first renewal and second option to renew for use by the public road management.

This contract consists of outside top repair services for county vehicles for emergency road um incidents.

This request seeks to exercise the first on the first renewal option through May the 31st, 2027, awarded to Southern SA Mark LLC, uh SETCO Inc.

doing business at SETCO uh solid tie atlanta commercial tie and action tie total amount not to exceed 510,000 dollars.

Hi, good afternoon, good afternoon.

Commissioners um as read, this is a renewal contract, first renewal for tie services.

This contract is utilized for roadside tie services, um that's both on road and off-road, and also for after hours tie services for the county.

Okay.

Are there any questions, concerns?

Okay.

Is this just for the service vehicles or any or all county vehicles?

All county vehicles and pieces of equipment and pieces of equipment.

Okay, wonderful.

I yield back.

Okay.

If there's nothing further, is there a motion?

Make a motion to approve 0243.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

That items approved.

Thank you.

Okay.

The next item is uh 2603 24.

That's innovation and technology.

All commission districts is a change order to number uh change order number one to contract number one three five eight six nine zero cloud solution and services for use by finance, office of management and budget, and the department of innovation and technology.

This contract consists of purchasing of the competitively led statewide contract number.

You can read the number to purchase open gov software for budget uh development management, reporting, and transparency.

This request seeks to increase contract funds for continued use of open gov software awarded to Kerasov Technology Corp amount not to exceed 413,000, 451 dollars.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, madam chair and commissioners.

So we're seeking to increase the contract funds for the third year of OpenGov software.

OpenGov is the budgeting software used by OMB or for budget management as well as issues by the various departments for budget submissions.

Okay, are there any questions or comments?

Okay.

Um I have mentioned this in years past just to hear it again or say it again.

Um if you go to other jurisdictions' websites, I believe they use OpenGov, and they have where you can put in your address and you can see where your what your tax bill is, and you can see by department where that money is being spent almost on a daily basis.

Does this get us there?

Or is this strictly internal for this for budget?

This contract.

Good afternoon.

So OpenGov has a whole different, you know, several different platforms.

And one is for tax and revenue, so I'm not sure if those jurisdictions are using that.

Okay.

Um, and that might be why they have that capability.

Um, there are some other capabilities within the budgeting platform that we're working to implement, just allowing more of the uh reporting and transparency portion of it, but I don't think that feature specifically is part of it.

Um what would be a way you would suggest that that the commission could get that onto the agenda uh where you guys would look into that and be able to report back on those results for us.

Again, I as a taxpayer myself think it's very valuable to see you know where the money's going to the different departments.

Um please answer the question.

Okay for tax commissioner, there they use Tyler, IES World, where we do have that link off the website where you can view your taxes, but it doesn't correlate with where that money is going.

We can speak to Tyler to see if in open gov to see if that integration is available.

Okay, and go from there.

Okay.

I I'd appreciate that.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

Okay, you had a question.

For clarity, the 413,000, that's in addition to what we've already been paying annually, or is that for the third year?

That's for the third year.

That's the annual maintenance for open gov software.

Okay, so not additional services, just an additional year is 413,000.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And are we looking to do a new contract?

Um is that why we're buying essentially buying an additional year?

We're working toward a new contract where we can incorporate some of those additional services being requested.

I don't think we're doing a new contract.

I don't think the budget department is looking for another solution as well.

So we will, I'm sorry, we will need a new contract after year three for a multi-year contract or three-year contract.

If we intend to stick with OpenGov, which is what I believe OMB wants to do.

Okay.

So I I guess what I'm trying to get around to is um, and this has come up before the change orders and extensions and all the different things that we've been doing recently to keep up with the services.

Essentially, is there a strategy for so there won't be uh another request to increase funds or increase contract terms just in general, but speaking about this contract hi, Commissioner.

Um just assisting.

Uh there is an effort.

Um, every department is different on how their budget works and what they have available to spend.

Some choose not to do multi-year because that means they kind of have to commit that, and others do get uh a quota or proposal for multiple years, but we are talking to all the departments that are using OpenGov.

We're also trying to get on a more universal schedule with them because we have a lot more usage with OpenGov using their different modules.

So that is a conversation we've already been having with uh IT, and so there is going to be a more structured organization with all of the OpenGov purchases.

And with that, will we have an opportunity to see about any additional services that have been requested?

I think it's just a matter of you guys asking about that and then the research being done to see if that's a viable option.

Okay, thank you.

I yield back.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Tierra.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, yeah, I just wanted to uh second what Commissioner Patrick was talking about.

I think um, and we've spoken about this a few times about there being like a taxpayer receipt, yeah, basically.

And um this year seems like a really good year to kind of preemptively have that very accessible.

Yeah, I I imagine that we will get lots of questions about why am I paying all this money and where is it going?

And I think that you know, if you don't come to every meeting, you know, you can be forgiven for not knowing the answer.

So, you know, Zach and TJ and what I'll commit to on the Fab committee side is we'll sort of have some discussions over how we can kind of use OpenGov and or other ways to kind of create that taxpayer receipt.

And my humble opinion would be to include it as an insert also in our property tax mailing notice notifications.

So people when they get something in the mail, there's something that they can look at that's like here's sort of the basic, but then go to this open gov website or somewhere else where they can really see exactly line by line.

Does that make sense, TJ?

Yeah, and we can discuss that with the tax commissioner.

Um I know that we've done something similar with e-host in the past.

Um and I will say too, I I remember several years ago, Commissioner Patrick, your request to have sort of a chart that showed a dollar bill and then how much was going towards everything.

And um, I did that, and we can do that again.

It's not a built-in feature of OpenGov, but we can definitely put that together.

Yeah, um, but we've also been talking um COO and I about having an uh demo of OpenGov, maybe at a Fab committee meeting coming up to show you basically how you access everything online, kind of what its capabilities are.

Okay, and we can discuss too, you know, any features that the commissioners would like to see at that point.

I do appreciate the dollar bill.

I think the one next step for that dollar bill, because you I think you kind of talk about like where the funds go, right?

Hospital, police, fire general.

I think what we're probably talking about is actually more granular, you know, like here's how much actually is going into E911, here's how much is actually in the planning department, you know, and so it kind of like actually breaks it down to like you know, four dollars of your tax bill goes to co-compliance, right?

You know, just so people understand sort of how like exactly like the ratio, um so it's a very clear understanding of like what you're paying for in a very personal sense.

Um so maybe that's something we can explore.

I I I think it's doable in terms of showing the percentages, especially with the property.

Yeah, we just can't do it individualized for each you know taxpayer.

But well, you can if there's a percentage as a percentage, correct?

That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay.

Um, if there's no further questions, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 0327.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

That item is approved.

The next item is um 260328.

Is the change order?

Number three to contract number uh two zero zero zero two oh seven network professional services and monitoring, annual contract with four offices to renew for use by the department of innovation and technology.

This contract is this providing managed network services and maintenance support for the countywide voice and data network.

This request seeks to increase the contract term through September the 30th, 2026 and fines awarded to MGT impact solutions amount not to exceed 491,450 and 13 cents.

Yes, we're requesting to extend the contract for six months and uh in the amount of the 4949,450 dollars with MGT impact solutions.

The primary purpose for extending it is to allow MGT to renegotiate their state contract to include additional SKUs or services that the CAP County is is paying for separately currently.

So they they're anticipating about six months before that that state contract can be finalized.

So that's the purpose of the extension.

Any questions?

Okay, no questions is our motion.

I move to approve item two zero two six zero three two eight.

Second okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, that motion is approved.

Uh now we're gonna go to page four uh oh four three nine okay.

Um that is commission districts one and six okay, um bid invitation, airfield uh correct still seal and remaking at the CAP Peace Tree Airport for use by the decal East Street airport consists of repair and ceiling and remake of the airport runway and surface treaty payment for the purposes of maintaining the safety of aircraft that are taken off and landing on the runways recommended award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, highlight airfield services amount not to exceed 835,275 and 45 cents.

Uh I am available to assist PDK any way I can the request is as you stated, uh it is to uh repair the the runways, the pavement uh for 835,000, 275.45 cents.

It was a low bid.

We had three submissions, and we are recommending to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, highlight airfield services.

Okay.

You have a question.

Yeah, thank you, Madam President Officer.

So um, so I see the dollar amount on this is 835,000 and change, and then if we go back to page two of our agenda uh 0388, um the totally award total award, I guess was 936,000.

Uh 702 from the state, and we kicked in 234,000.

Is this literally the the on the one hand we're receiving the funds from the state and committing to it, and then this is phase two where we have the contract to do the project, and then if it is just um sort of an understanding of the hundred thousand dollar difference or so from um from what the um award was in 0388 to what the spend is in 0439 that it I'm going to have to defer with the PDK all right, um answer by next Tuesday.

By next Tuesday, okay.

All right.

Sort of an understanding of the hundred thousand dollar difference or so from what the um award was in zero three eight eight to what the spend is in zero four three nine that it I'm going to have to defer with the PDK all right um okay next Tuesday by next Tuesday okay all right okay those are my questions you okay yeah I have the same question but if we could also get answered since the amount required is less um does that mean our match will be less as well or is it simply based off that 936 that's being offered or allocated I'm going to defer that to PDK as well okay okay so um uh Mr.

CO is okay it seems as if if is no one here to answer those questions right it looks as if the one is the accepting the allocation from the state the other's awarding the contract funds but the issue of the hundred thousand dollars I'm trying to reconcile as we speak okay if we need to have a substitute for Tuesday does that work for the committee yeah yeah okay that works is that work for you not really not really I see the splash let me it's not really two to one I mean what it what it's saying is that if we get the information answered before Tuesday satisfactory that we will approve it possibly but if we don't it's ready to be on the agenda but we won't approve it because we won't have the necessary information so uh and evidently this is if it depends I mean if this is something for the safety of the uh planes coming in and out I would assume that the director would have been here but if he's not here and I'm not questioning why he's not here but if we want to put it on the agenda as you mentioned Robert uh and then if we get the necessary information we can make informed decisions and if you don't have the information you can vote against it if you want to if you could move it pending um yeah pending additional information yeah that's reasonable it's reasonable okay uh so I'll make a motion to approve uh zero three two eight uh on the condition of the funding discussion second uh on the dollar amount discussion okay and again that's the disparity between the 936 that was awarded versus the 835 that the contract is for right and then we're on item 0439 yeah my apologies um motion additional information pending additional information motion to approve 0439 also how that impacts our match since we don't need the rule 936 we're reconciling all that okay all in did we get a second second all in okay did you have a question well just I mean let's get can we just get some information about assume there's like a contingency or something that's probably why the numbers aren't exactly right okay we have a motion and a second uh all in favor aye okay so that's approval on condition with the additional information and the sooner you get that information the better okay the next item we'll skip down is 260414 uh that is the change order all commission districts change order order number two the contract number one three four nine seven five four installation of data voice and multimedia cabling uh this is the annual contract with four options to renew by the use of uh the department of innovation and technology this contract consists of providing low voltage and security uh camera installation thank you uh as well as move additional additions and changes of data voice and multimedia cabling at various facilities within the county this request seeks to increase contract funds for the continuation of necessary cable and installation at various county facilities awarded to RB communications in amount not to exceed 500 thousand dollars hello again we are like you said looking to increase the contract for RB communications RB is responsible for performing all of the low voltage uh cabling for the county whenever a department moves from one location to the next or if if somebody needs a TV hung on the wall they come out and and run the cabling and and perform those or even security cameras they they install any of those uh devices okay any questions okay if none is there a motion motion to approve 0414 second all in favor aye aye okay that item is approved

Whenever a department moves from one location to the next, or if somebody needs a TV hung on the wall, they come out and run the cabling and perform those, or even security cameras.

They install any of those uh devices.

Okay.

Any questions?

Okay.

If none, is there a motion?

Motion to approve 0414.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

We're gonna go back to page two uh zero six zero two on page two.

Okay, this is the change order to number five, the contract number one, two five eight three three two, change order number two.

The contract number you can read the contract and change order number one, the contract.

You can read the contracts.

Soil and material testing survey and services and structural analysis for use by the department of facility management, recreations, parking, cultural affairs, public works, transportation, public works, road, and drainage, watershed management, and planning and sustainability.

These contracts consist of geotechnical and geoenvironment evaluations for the engineering constructibility and or potential environment risk of multiple sites throughout the county.

This request seeks to ratify previously issued purchase orders for the amount in the amount of $56,1482 for contract number one to 5833.

This uh further request seeks to increase contract funds for DWM and PS awarded to Max Engineering Engineering Group Inc.

Corporate Environment Risk Management, um engineering and consulting and unifying consulting group amount not to exceed 436,148 dollars and eighty-two cents.

Good afternoon, madam chair, commissioners.

Uh yes, this agenda item.

This is for the uh on call soils and materials testing companies.

Um they also perform uh survey and structural design and analysis, and there are four on-call consultants who you just read that are in the agenda item.

This request is to just to increase the cap and to ratify a previous purchase order and the amount of 56,1482.

Um, and this is a ongoing five-year contract, and we just got to the point where we need to raise the caps because we spent spin up to the cap limit.

Okay, have there any questions?

Okay, um is there a motion?

Okay, I'm sorry.

And is this an increase for an annual cap or for the five-year?

It's on the five-year cap.

Well, I think we're getting pretty close to the end of the to the end of the term of the five years.

Okay.

I yield back.

Okay, is there a motion?

Uh motion to approve 0260.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, that item is approved.

260391.

Is it change order?

All can uh 26090391.

Change order number one, the contract number one three two three four three seven pest control services, annual contract with two options to renew for use by the department of facility.

Management, this contract consists to ratify and previous by the contract term increase.

This contract also seeks to increase contract funds in terms through September the 30th, 2026, awarded the powerhouse termite and pest control, amount not to exceed $65,000.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

This contract, uh, we are requesting to extend it another six months and add um sixty-five thousand dollars to cover the monthly services for pest control for all the county buildings.

And I'm assuming this contract is waiting to go to purchasing.

It's um it's being rebid right now.

It's being rebounded.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Okay, are there any questions?

Okay, if none, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0391.

Second.

Okay, we got move for one more.

And so I'll go back to page three.

We got to vote.

Page three.

I gotta do vote.

Oh, I'm sorry.

We got a motion and a second, and all in favor.

Aye.

Okay.

And we go now to that's approved.

We're going now to 0394, and that's all commissioned districts.

Mr.

Renewal contract number 1367915 light bulbs, fixtures, lamps, and billets, the list contract, second second renewal of two options to renew for use by the department of facility management.

This contract consists of the purchase of light bugs, fixtures, lamps, and bullets.

Uh this contract, I mean, this request seeks to ratify the provided contact term, contract term increase.

This uh request also seeks to exercise the second renewal option through February 28 uh 2027 awarded to summit lighting solutions amount not to exceed 125,000 dollars.

Yes, ma'am.

We are requesting to um extend the contract another year, renew the contract for summit lighting solutions, and also requesting 125,000 be added to the contract, and this is for the purchase of uh light bulbs and fixtures and ballasts for all the buildings.

Okay, this is the second renewal, yes, ma'am.

Okay, okay, any questions?

Okay.

I just want to clarify the the renewal would have been for 125,000, or you're asking for an additional 25,000, just based on the language you use.

I want clarity.

It's just for this, the renewal is 125,000 for the renewal year.

Gotcha.

Okay, I yield back.

Okay, is there a motion?

I move to approve item 2026 0394.

Second.

Okay, all in favor.

I thank you.

Okay, that's all that we're gonna have time for today.

And I'm sorry.

And what number is that?

Oh, that's the first one.

Um, I mean, I'm already at 219, and um, and that's gonna be dependent upon Earth's chair.

I've already run over, and uh just like I'm not getting to the um book or and I'm not getting to what's that uh uh chart review.

Yeah, the charter review.

I you know, only got so many so much time.

So that's left up to our ERP chair.

Well, you say quick, but and it was some of the stuff that we talked about the last time.

Um that's fine.

We can go through that.

Our ERPS agenda agenda isn't too exhaustive, so just a few records.

Okay.

Okay, so we're gonna go back to 2602 86, all commission districts, the resolution of the Board of Commission of the Cap County, Georgia, reaffirming the county's prior authorization to seek recovery of costs of impoundment and care for the court held dogs pursuant to uh official code of Georgia annotated 411-98, urging the CAP County Law Department to resume filing court cost of court petitions into creating uh court held dog coordinator.

Seal that's correct uh there's not I believe uh that's something that the law department manages, but there's not a dedicated position to that.

Okay.

And uh since the law department manage that do you all feel a dedicated coordinator with extra cost is needed or do you feel that it's something that the law department can continue as I have followed this um Madam Chair, the law department now has a paralegal position that will serve in this capacity for the county.

They will provide the necessary labor, quite frankly, to do the research, coordinate the reporting and monitoring of what's happening with the court held dogs in our shelter, and that will support the attorneys who are working on cost of care petitions, motions to dispose and the like.

And equally importantly, I think it will help us to provide information on a regular patterned basis, hopefully monthly, quarterly, so that the amount of information you guys are bombarded with from the general public will be countered by internal information and reporting.

And Commissioner Spears, I hope that's a fair description of what I understood to be your vision in asking for this position being added.

Speaker Um, thank you very much.

So I did sponsor this item.

I appreciate the ops committee chair um and certainly the ERPS committee chair for allowing us to hear this and eat into some or her time.

So um, yes, absolutely.

So our goal was to establish a position within the law department, and that is something that we did include in the approved 2026 budget as a paralegal position.

We also um included in the 2026 budget a court dog coordinator position in police services.

So those appropriations have already been made.

And I do again just want to thank you guys so much for being open to this.

Um we have certainly you got the ball rolling late last month, and I'm so happy that um there has been some movement there, but I do believe that with this new position to monitor the process to help with just some of the red tape that is created with with moving these dogs along so they're not stuck in the the shelter forever and ever.

But I do think that new position will have uh a huge impact on it.

So is that the new position in the law department?

Is that the new position in the police department that you are okay?

Is that the new position in the law department or the new position in the police department that this particular agenda item is?

So this particular agenda item is focused on the paralegal role in the law department.

Okay.

During the budget planning process, that is where I bubbled up that a second position that could work in tandem with the law department.

And also, madam chair, um our interim county attorney did email, and I've distributed to you guys just an update, an amended version of the resolution with some very minor tweaks.

I believe that he can speak to that.

Um, however, Commissioner Bolton, uh, the last time this was discussed, there was a question, and maybe you could just advise on this briefly, is around the terminology.

So right now it reads a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of DeCab County Georgia reaffirming the county's prior authorization, blah blah blah.

So I believe that what Commissioner Bolton correct me if I'm wrong, ma'am, is that you had hoped it would read a reaffirmation of the Board of Commissioners of DeCab County's prior authorization to seek recovery.

I'm open to that friendly amendment if that feels better to you, and our interim county attorney agrees with that, just retitling this.

I don't have a problem with that language, Dr.

Bolton.

Okay.

And I'm just gonna talk through it one more time just because we have questions up here.

I was taking the position that um the county attorney in his office had already started working on some things.

So uh I would have liked to see it discuss or sh re-indicate uh a reaffirmation of what's currently existing, whereas it reads a reaffirmation of what was previously authorized.

So we were just trying to um demonstrate that of course this is something that was authorized previously.

The county attorney's office is actively working on it and reassuring the community that they're gonna continue to work through it.

So just a bit of wordsmithing there.

And if I may, I just think for the sake of efficiency, I'd like to touch a few of the tweaks that I offered, Commissioner Spears, because I think they're helpful.

And Commissioner Spears, I'm receiving your handing them to your colleagues as approval and acceptance of those suggested changes.

We we added continue instead of resume to to emphasize the fact that we're added.

If you come down um the sixth whereas clause, uh we we note that it was the second half of 2025, just as a general matter where there was some problems getting this work done, and it has been resumed.

And I I'd like to remind all of you there was um some celebration of the progress where we reported some success with animals.

Uh I know we said four, I believe it was either six or seven actually through our work already this year.

The next um one is two whereas clauses now.

We say instead of resuming, continuing, because we've already started this work.

Um, and then under section two, we add promptly resume and or continue.

And the issue is we did a lot of preliminary work that resulted in again, six or seven animals being freed up without actually getting to the point of filing.

So I left in resume and noted and or continue.

Uh, and then section five, we changed because of the dynamic of getting someone up to speed within 30 days of the creation of a court held dog coordinator position or the adoption of this resolution, whichever is later, and monthly thereafter.

You've now had the creation of the position, we've got to get it filled, and we are working to get that position filled and get someone up to speed to do the reporting.

And I note that we have key information identified by the county attorney, such as the following.

We're gonna monitor how this goes, and we're gonna provide information that we think is germane to the issues that you've been dealing with, and that will help you respond to the public push for activity by the county in this area, and it may not be limited to what's in front of you.

Um, and it will evolve, I'm quite sure, as our animal shelter evolves and these issues evolved, we will adjust with that in an ongoing basis moving forward.

Okay.

And um, the language could the language be a um create a court held dog coordination coordinator position within the law department so that it's specified where that position is.

Because if it's just open, it could be in anywhere.

You may I come you mean like the public safety division of the law department, include that?

I I would prefer I I'm open to it saying the law department.

I I want to be very, very careful about that specificity.

Once we get into operations generally, and this is a reporting mechanism that is unique to law, which is a unique area for the county.

It is different than most departments because of the county attorney's requirement to have dual reporting to both the commission and the CEO's office.

So I would leave it at law.

I am an interim county attorney.

We need to be flexible about any future evolution of the department and the change of the teams and the like, but the position's there.

We will work to make sure as a group that the work gets done.

It is the public safety team that is successful in the work right now and has been in the past, and this person's being groomed to work in that area.

So if that changes, that shouldn't change the reporting, and I wouldn't want to bog that down with this resolution.

So the law department is where I would leave it, Commissioner.

Well, that's what I'm asking.

No, I'm saying instead of going further, like Commissioner Long Spears said, and saying the public safety team within the law department, I would leave it general to the law department.

Is that okay?

Of course, yeah, that's fine.

Okay.

Also, um, Madam Chair, and I know you want us to quickly be done.

One other friendly amendment we could make is that the seventh whereas list the um the status as of January 25th, if and this goes to what Commissioner Bolton, I think, was trying to get at earlier, is that we could by the next board meeting amend that whereas statement to also include the progress that has been made.

And um interim county attorney Phillips sent us an update on March 10th, but who knows?

Maybe we have made some more progress since then or will be for the meeting next week, so we can we can actually demonstrate within the resolution that having a focus on this has already improved the process, but actually creating that position where the law department would further improve, and so again, kind of going in that direction of not having this court dog challenge any further.

How do y'all feel about that friendly amendment?

I like that.

Okay, great.

I would I would beg your indulgence and just ask us uh allow us to give you a paragraph before you walk into that meeting.

Maybe not a full paragraph sentence, but we'll give you the update language here.

Okay, you don't handle it.

Okay.

Great.

You will know what the update is.

Okay.

We want to make sure the community knows we're making progress actively and effectively efficiently.

Yeah, that you work in that progress is important.

Oh, okay.

So we good yes, ma'am.

Okay, I got a quick question, and I apologize if this was addressed uh and uh while I was reading the resolution again.

Um paragraph five under or section five under reporting.

Um it mentions 30 days within the creation of the position or adoption of the resolution.

Um is that a functional feasible number?

We intend to do our best to meet it.

Okay.

Right now, the latest possible date is going to be after you vote on this.

Um, and we're gonna work to get a report out, whether positions filled or not.

Okay.

Um, it is a burden without the position.

But just as we sent a March 10th status update, we're gonna work to get information to you simply because as Dr.

Bolton alluded to, I know you guys are getting questions from the public, and you need this information to properly educate your constituents about what's happening, as does our CEO.

I know all eight members of the governing authority need the info.

So we'll work to get it to you.

Okay, all right.

Okay, okay.

Okay.

Um did you answer?

Oh, so uh with that, is there a motion?

Um motion to approve the substitute for 0286.

Okay, is that with the amended language that'll be the with the friendly amendments?

Yeah, thank you, sir.

Yeah, second all in favor, aye.

Okay, that uh motion passes.

Um is there a motion to adjourn?

So move.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.