Great Tuesday, everyone.

My name is Nicole Messiah, and I am honored to serve as the Chair of PEX planning economic development and community services.

I serve this in this committee along with Commissioner Robert Patrick from District 1 and Commissioner Long Spears from District 2.

I also acknowledge that we have Commissioner Ted Terry here from district super district six.

If there is an opportunity, or excuse me, if you have the opportunity to um review the minutes, I will entertain a motion, please.

Motion to approve.

Second.

And that is agenda number.

Give me one second.

I'm sorry.

That is agenda item 2026-050751.

We have a proper first and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

That agenda item passes.

For the next one, we have human services.

That's 2026-0636.

All commission districts, transfer funds and the amount of 850,000 from the general fund to the senior citizens services grant fund.

Great afternoon, Director Scott.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the PECS committee.

This is a annual item each year.

This is a money that's already in the human services budget, and we're seeking to transfer from one account to the other.

Each year there's a gap in funding from January 1 to July 1 when we anticipate senior services funding from the land of regional commission.

That's inclusive of federal and state dollars.

So this transfer funds basically acts as a bridge loan.

And then if approved, um, and we are able to accept the uh this bridge and transfer the funds over, then it goes back into the general fund after July 1.

All right, fantastic.

Are there any questions from committee members?

Commissioner Terry.

All right.

Seeing non Allen to take an ocean.

Motion to approve 0636.

Second.

Seeing we have a proper first and second.

Um, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

That agenda item is approved and passes.

The next is from recruit um recreation park and cultural affairs.

That's agenda item 2026-0602, all commission districts for 2026 summer food services program.

Great afternoon, Paige.

Nice to be here.

Thank you.

Um, so this is to approve our 2026 summer food program.

Um, you should have a substitute in front of you.

The only change is the number of sites has increased from nine to eleven sites.

Wow.

And again, this provides breakfast and lunch for any of our summer campers.

Fantastic.

And uh I love seeing that the county is doing this obviously, much needed.

A lot of the times the students that um tend to have some challenges is during the summer when they're not getting their breakfasts and and lunch from school.

So the fact that the county and you guys are having to work all put forth this effort as you have in the past ahead of the summer for the students, I think is incredible.

Um I'm gonna open up the floor for um committee members if you have any questions or any comments.

Uh the only question I would have is is what are the 11 locations?

It's at each of our rec centers plus Porter Sanford and Lewalker Park.

So those were the two that were added in that's that we were looking at just rec centers in the beginning, so that's the substitute.

So it's all recreation centers, Porter Sanford and Lewalker Park.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Um Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um and Paige, this is this is the is this federal money that comes to the state and then comes to us.

And so do we have any contribution or are we just simply hosting the sites?

We host the sites and we keep record of the camp.

So the number of campers is dis distributed based on that.

Okay, thank you.

And um I see that we're going until July 20, 2026.

Is that uh does that date correlate with the last day of school for DeCap County students?

Yes, it starts the week after the last day of school for summer camp, and then it ends the last day of summer camp, which is a week before summer goes back in the beginning of August.

I mean school goes back in the beginning of August, excuse me.

Fantastic.

And then um, is this the is 11 um sites?

I know we added some just based on the need, and I appreciate you um being conscientious of that.

Um, does it seem to increase every year?

Is this and are the numbers based on last year, or is it projected um to account for additional costs this year?

It is projected for additional costs this year.

I believe it's about 150,000 over what the estimated cost was last year based on the actual numbers is how we adjust moving forward, plus we add some in because again it is an estimate, correct?

So it is projection.

Well, I'm glad to see that because that was one of my questions.

I mean, especially since it's something that's so you know important, don't want you guys to be in the middle of and then run into a deficit, much rather make sure that you have what's necessary to ensure that our students are you know getting the support that they need over the summer.

So thank you for that.

And again, thinking ahead of there.

Um commissioner Patrick.

Uh final question, madam chair.

Um, the total amount is that the 555,000.

That's correct, yes.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

That's the agreed to amount.

If you see us again, it means we went over that, which again is a good thing, and then we would have to do an adjustment.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Fantastic.

And well, if so, just you know, come to us and let us know.

And that's why I just wanted to make sure you had sufficient to get to cover it, but already thought about that, so thank you for that.

Um, if there are no other uh questions or um any other comments, I'll open up the floor for a motion.

Um motion to approve 0602.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

The next agenda item of parks and rec is uh 2026-0408, and that's commission districts three and four, SWC statewide contract number nine nine nine nine nine, spd SPD 000172-006 integrated security and surveillance products and services for the use by the Department of Parks and Rec to obtain cameras for security surveillance awarded to convergent technologies LLC in an amount not to exceed 201,986 and 78 cents.

And there is a substitute on this one as well.

I apologize there was a mathematical error between the user department form and if you added up the estimates from the vendors.

I apologize for that.

It's about $34 difference.

Um so this is to approve surveillance cameras for three sites, Porter Sanford, Hamilton, and then Chestnut, which is our shop.

There was just two cameras that went down that needs to be replaced, and then the other two is adding and upgrading the those those two other sites at Hamilton and Porter Sanford.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate that.

Any questions or comments from committee?

Seeing nine, Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for uh Porter Sanford.

Are all of these are all of these new cameras?

Yes, we're upgrading the system.

Upgrading the whole thing.

That's correct.

Okay.

And then in terms of the monitoring, is it done through this contract, or is that with the real-time crime center, or is it like after the fact?

So it's both.

These are more for internal cameras for the site itself, the building itself, and then there's exterior cameras in the parking lot that have the monitoring from PD, but we internally just only monitor inside the building.

Okay, so the exterior cameras are tapped into the real-time crime center.

I'll find out.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, so that's the only information I just get clarification on, Madam Chair.

But um, everything else looks great.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

And again, um, I'm sure the folks over there will be very appreciative.

I'm glad that you know we're stepping things up a bit.

Thank you for that.

Um with that, uh, Commissioner Patrick, do you have a quick question?

Um Paige, this might be out of your knowledge, but how long do we hold on to the data for what do we use the data with?

That I think it depends on how much memory, correct?

Yes.

Okay, I'm getting a nod.

Yes.

So I think it can go up to two weeks.

Yes.

Can I go ask him?

Lambo is our Lambo's our police liaison.

Y'all all know Lambo.

Welcome to the front Lambo.

Come on.

Basically, if something was reported to the department, we reach out to police.

I'll Lambo receives.

He told I tell him all the time he's our 911.

So yeah.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Terry.

Yes.

Uh so he said 30 days just for the benefit of the public.

Thank you.

Uh to be able to know.

All right.

Um, if there are no further questions or comments, I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve item 0408.

Uh second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

So much.

And the next is for uh community development.

The agenda item is 2026-0432.

All commission districts, contract number 138-2471, 1388, 138, excuse me, 2499, and 138 to 509 plumbing services for the community development.

And 138 to 509 plumbing services for the community development.

The CAB Care's first renewal of two options seeking to exercise the first renewal option through June 30th, 2027, awarded to J2 Connect, Incorporated Facility Maintenance and Services Group, the Raw Plumbing and HVAC Services LLC.

The total amount not to exceed $1,926,000, $356.50.

Great afternoon, Director Mitchell.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you for allowing us to present.

But uh we have a program we're doing for the county.

It's not a federal program, but it's a program uh that um administration had to request it that we start back in uh 2022.

And so we've been at this since 2022.

It's a program called the CAP CARES, in essence, is a water program where we have five million dollars of ARP funding, and the contracts we currently have in place expire June 30th.

Uh this request you'll see is to in essence help uh us to be able to spend the balance of the funds, and it's being awarded using the first renewal option with the help of purchasing Willie Moon is here.

He's our purchasing representative, and they actually put the legislation together for us in this case, and we're asking that you approve uh a contract renewal in an amount of 1.9.

The 1.9 in essence is the balance left for the plumbers that were currently working with us.

We had four, but one withdrew and went out of business.

Uh so the amount allocated is on the next transparency, which is page three.

It in essence gives you J2 Connect, facility maintenance and services group, and raw plumbing, those allocations.

With those allocations, we'd be able to complete the uh funding by appropriating uh money to the existing contracts, and again the ARP fundings.

Um the program is all about something you can help to share with your constituents, which is in essence to uh repair sewer laterals, that's sanitary.

Also, set to sewer conversions, water leaks, and emergency water leaks.

The housing stock in the Cap County is so old until we get a lot of individuals that want to partake of the program.

We've completed over 233 projects so far.

There's a huge backlog that we help people, and the cost averages sometimes $15,000, $20,000 to repair leaks with our aging housing stock.

Uh and we spent $3 million to date.

We still have $1.9 to go.

And in order to be used for your constituents, here's the flyer that's on the county website, which gives individuals an ability to apply using the the uh QR code that's there of the telephone numbers and the associated information they need.

It's not age space, but it's also based on area medium income.

We use 60 percent AMI to select our candidates.

So with that data, we'll like to request that you honor us with a renewal of the contract to be able to complete the funds.

As you know, ARP funds are now spent.

We have to start a check to treasury and send it back.

So we'd like to get your permission to move forward.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate there are any questions or concern from committee members.

Um I do actually, Commissioner Longspears.

So I was just doing the math on um the repair cost.

I just want to make sure I understand what I'm looking at, but and good day to you, sir.

Thank you for being here.

So I am on that slide five.

Um and it states third bullet down.

Plumbing repairs completed to date is 233.

Yes.

The total funds expended, 3,073,643, which averages $13,191 per repair.

Is that that's pretty consistent, I guess, for industry standards.

I'm just trying to uh understand the expense associated with that.

Um that's an average number, but they tend to be a little bit higher than that.

But that is the average uh with uh with that, because in that expenditure you've got uh a lot of dynamics, but that's not plumbing is very expensive, very expensive.

And some of the most recent jobs I've got underway tend to be more in the 20 in the maybe $20,000 range uh in all.

Okay.

But plumbing is not inexpensive, it's very expensive.

Now I hear you.

All right.

So um, and then we have 1.9 million left, 155 that are actively being repaired.

So that one is down to 12,428 is at least what's currently left in that budget.

And so you're asking for an additional how much?

14 Well, I'm asking for the balance.

1.9.

Oh, 1.9, because the grant ARP funds is $5 million.

We spent three, and in order to spend the funds by the end date, we need to uh spend the balance of the funds that will be unappropriated.

We had one plumber that withdraws, so I had to reallocate uh the funding.

It was $650,000 for that particular plumber that withdrew.

So we have to reallocate his funds as well as give uh the funds that are still left in the contract.

The contract's expiring about in June 30th.

So without an extension, then we're stuck with the funds.

We can't move forward.

We have to send the money back to Treasury.

And it's an extension just through December 31?

It's it's actually a year extension.

However, the grant ends 1231, but purchasing has an annual contract renewal.

So even though we say 20 uh 27, June 30th, uh the program has to be completed by the end of this year.

So we really have to aggressively move forward with uh getting our plumbers to up their volume of jobs they're doing to spend the funds.

And this is the 1.9 is requested out of ARP funds, any additional ARP funds or general fund or it's other the original appropriation.

We are appropriated back in 2022.

Okay.

Five million dollars to run the program.

So it was appropriated uh that amount.

And what was the funding source?

ARP.

So I do have a compliance question.

Um I guess this would maybe go to maybe you, sir or Mr.

Williams.

So I'm very familiar with ARP.

Um, and I believe the county's deadline, and I'm interested to know if this there is an exception here in case anybody else needs an exception.

My understanding is that we are required per DCAP County to um appropriate, which we already had to do by the end of 2025, I believe.

By the end of 24, you had to make it.

24, in a 24, and you had the two extra years to actually spend the dollars at the end.

Right.

So we were given um, I believe September 15th, that our district offices we have to spend all of our ARP funds.

And so he's requesting to go to December 31st.

Is that been something that procure let me ask this a multi-part question?

Is that something that he has been given an exception?

And I I hope so, because this is a good program.

Or you can spend it.

The only thing that it concerns me is that your rationale for giving us an earlier deadline, not December 31, was simply having to prepare the massive reporting that you have to repair prepare for Treasury.

But if he wants to extend the program past one year, ARP cannot be that source.

Right.

So I know that for a fact.

Right.

So there is no ARP spending after that date.

So any spending should be done, and I guess the date that has been provided, that September 15th or thereabouts.

I think it was a second business meeting in September, whatever that is.

Right.

And that date is an internal date set for the reason that you just articulated.

So that they can gather from all of the interests who have been given grant funds and ensure that everything is closed out.

Um in the instance of uh this specific program, if additional time has been allotted because of the nature of you know these contracts, that may well be the case.

I have not had specific conversation with grants and with Director Mitchell, but at any in any event, it would still be probably the middle of December or so to wrap everything up.

Okay.

December 31st would not give sufficient time for the grants people to file all the work.

I've hold I mean they want to enjoy a holiday too, a wholeheartedly agree.

Right, but right.

They just wouldn't have time.

So then ultimately the latest this program could be extended would be say whatever.

I mean, I'll be happy to support that as a committee member, but by Tuesday's meeting, could you guys get together and figure out what the final date of this program will be because it can't be one year with ARP funds?

It has to be a good one.

With the ARP funds, it cannot.

Unless y'all are generous enough to give Director Mitchell ARP interest funds, where he then is able to extend it into the United States.

There's a funny thing about that interest fund.

There was a sharp commissioner who spotted it and we don't have it.

It's uh Oh, we have all of it?

Yes.

Oh, I didn't realize we had all of it.

Okay.

Well.

So Director Mitchell, this is a great program.

I just um again wanted to flag you as that it cannot go past whatever date that the administration gives you to spend those ARP funds.

Uh yes, I realize that.

And also we work with Treasury because we submit in SharePoint all the transactions.

So my staff has to up the auditors are with us month by month.

All the data we do, it's not going to be 11th hour.

It's already been submitted on an ongoing basis.

All the invoices, everything about the program, the applications, everything you can imagine about a profile, the file has to be transmitted to the auditors uh on a month-to-month basis.

So we already done that.

So I might suggest then for this item you have the first renewal option through June 30th, 2027 that you just revise that date to whatever um Mr.

Williams or procurement or the grants team advises.

Yes, can I ask for this?

Um so we can keep the contract um for the time period, but we can clearly articulate that ARP funding lapses at the end of this year.

Should we be able to identify another source of funding other than ARP funds?

We still want the contract to be available.

Okay, then within the agenda item, please.

We can delineate.

Right.

Include I just I don't want there to be any vagueness or unclarity of the usage of ARP funds.

I don't want to draw any attention to us for potentially spending our ARP funds incorrectly.

Absolutely.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Yield back.

So Willie, he can make those changes, wouldn't he be which once you thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Um Commissioner Longspears, Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so I definitely hear uh totally agree with what Commissioner Longspears was saying is you know, let's keep the program going and then obviously let's utilize this ARP money this year.

So in terms of the three contractors, they they basically have been given marching orders.

You know, get the remaining applications that are still in queue and spend this money by I guess December, early December, it sounds like oh yes, yes.

We work with them daily to ensure that we do the intake prices, we vet the individuals, and then we can do bidding and we give them an award to proceed, and then they substantially send invoices, we inspect what they're doing, and they get paid.

Okay.

And then um of the three contractors, do they basically do any of the four eligible repairs, or does one specialize do you have one doing you know water leaks and another one doing lateral remediation, or they just do any of the above?

Uh they do all tasks.

All things.

Any tasks we have defined, they can do.

Okay.

And with the remaining 1.9 million dollars, it looks like 500 applications have been received.

It says 657 notice to proceed with inspections, and then 233 complete, 155 active.

So do you think that we'll be able to complete most of the applications left that have not been given a perceived notice?

Uh it's going to be a challenge to be able to do that, because I've currently got 155 in the way.

So we have wouldn't have to uh have more focus.

Okay, gotcha.

Okay.

And so Zach, so decab cares will continue, but we'll have to have a new funding source next year.

Is that right?

Right.

And in order to continue DeCab cares, we will need a new funding source next year.

Okay.

When we discuss the 10 by 10, we did say that the watershed fund basically would sort of fill in the gaps when that time came.

That would be the only logical source.

Okay.

And I know so of the four eligible categories, the private sewer lateral remediation.

Um I know the law department has been researching um, in essence, uh a sewer lateral inspection prior to title closing as an ordinance.

And so I'd like us to bring that back up for consideration because that could be one of the best ways that we long-term set in place a mo uh a system that basically would see those private sewer laterals, which I believe is like I think Director Hauser said like 50 percent of the I and I is coming from private sewer lateral uh leaks.

And so that's a huge cost driver.

Um the septic to sewer conversion, it seems like the sewer district really should be the solution for that particular problem because that's it's worked in other locations and that's sort of it's it's quite frankly a good deal, honestly.

Um but to me the the top priority for the the watershed enterprise fund would be the water leaks.

Because if we are losing, you know, if we have all this non-revenue water, we're paying for it basically.

So there would be a financial imperative to fix those leaks because we're paying for it anyways, especially if we're talking about individuals that are low income and have a high debt uh burden and can't pay their past due bills, and then we say we're gonna cut your water off unless you fix the pipes, but that they can't fix the pipes, then they're sort of in a catch 22.

Yes.

Um can you all think about sort of maybe tailoring these four categories into sort of priority tranches of if we if you had a million of watershed funds, would they all go to would it be 25 percent each?

Would you have more emphasis on water leaks?

You see what I'm saying?

Yes, yeah, but let us take a look at it.

And an interesting point that you're making kind of indirectly, but it's worth it's worth stating that these programs are also part of our strategy to keep people in housing.

You know, and which is an important uh component.

Okay.

And then moving forward, I know Director Mitchell um is receiving the applications.

Will there be some interface between what the Urban League is doing in terms of receiving individuals who are having trouble with their water bills?

I think the last FAAP committee they reported maybe.

I think it was the 30 or 40 had come through the Urban League um kind of water assistance program, but then needed a repair, and I may have been referred to you.

But is there going to be like a um like a closer kind of tie moving forward between the Urban League water, what is it called, the RAP program?

That's what we're calling it, right?

The RAP program and then the the CAP CURES program, or are they going to be sort of separate and you just sort of apply on your own parallel tracks?

Uh they make referrals over to us.

We work more closely with Urban Lake.

We have a number of programs with Urban Lake and we chat with them.

Yep.

Okay, gotcha.

All right, thank you.

You're done.

Are there any other questions or comments related to this agenda item?

That's again, um, we're on agenda item ending in 0432.

Seeing none, I will open up the um the floor for a vote, please.

Motion to approve items 0432.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

The next is uh Board of Commissioners District 3, and that is agenda item 2026-0550, Commission District 3 to adopt an ordinance to amend the code of the CAP County to address public safety, vagrancy, unauthorized camping, and certain nuisance behaviors.

And I will um speak directly to this um item.

There has been an ordinance that had been passed out as you've heard in the past when this first came up, it needed to go um through through legal.

Um, just wanting to make sure that I conferred with them, but just uh briefly to speak to the end agenda item as you all are having an opportunity to review it.

Um, you know, there had been an ordinance that has um passed where this governing authority recognized um ensuring that we are not treating the unhoused um as criminals by virtue of being unhoused, and to um adopt um a stance in terms of being compassionate of our unhoused individuals.

And um what has also happened, you know, in that was the call and there being more of a need to distinguish between um being unhoused and some of the behaviors that certain individuals uh decide that they will partake in that has caused some challenges when it comes to um interfering with public uh safety, just concerns in general.

So what this ordinance does is it more goes into the explicity of the behaviors from which the um law enforcement uh may engage, and so that's why, again, to echo the need for um legal to be involved and wanting to make sure that our officers have the tools and to um use their discretion to do what's necessary um to address some of the issues when it comes to certain behaviors um including vagrancy.

So um with that, I will know that you guys are reviewing it, but I did want to give some context as to the need for the ordinance, where it derived from and the purposes um behind that.

Um we have a number of seniors um, particularly in certain parts of the county that have some concerns in addition.

We just have some businesses that have um aired some of their concerns as well, even with our CEO putting forth an initiative where by uh a business can elect to actually you know allow the uh police to engage where they feel as though certain behaviors are taking place in the property and that are adverse to their ability to um execute their business and against you know public safety, so it derives from that, and I'll entertain any questions, Commissioner Longspears.

Thank you very much, madam chair.

Um my first request, and this may be to the law department or perhaps yourself as the sponsor of this, if we could just get a description of what the current ordinance is and what changes are being proposed in this amendment.

That's number one.

Um there's just a small grammatical error in the now therefore it be ordained statement with a the lowercase g in front of governing authority.

Just a little note there.

And then I do have um quite a few questions actually, um, madam chair, and I don't know if you really if you want to use this time to go through them, I can do that.

Or if you want me to keep them high level or it and send you a follow-up, whatever your preferences.

Um either, particularly if there are gonna be some that are related to the specific language and we may need legal to explain or questions that other committee members are having, then um you know I we can entertain that as well if we get into in depth where there needs to be follow-up offline, then I'm sure um that our interim, I would want to call you commissioner.

I don't know.

We keep doing that.

We're gonna get you uh a seat up here, but our county attorney will advise us if we need to follow up offline for any reason.

So um uh deputy or interim county attorney Phillips.

We're messing your title up left and right up here.

Um thank you so much.

I'm assuming you were involved in the drafting of this ordinance, so it's acceptable I address my questions to you, sir.

The law department has proposed some changes to Commissioner Messiah.

This was her original ordinance.

Um I would like to clarify one point based on your your statement already.

Because this is original ordinance, are you asking us to compare it to the rest of the code because it's not an amendment to an existing ordinance?

And one of the questions was to ask law to look at how it's changing things.

Yes, basically.

Let me finish.

That's it.

It's an ordinance to amend the code, chapter, so basically chapter 16.

I am just curious it ha if urban camping is right.

I think it is referenced in our existing code.

To my knowledge, it is.

Um, or I could be wrong.

We'll we'll look at that what's happened thus far that I'm comfortable saying publicly in fairness to Commissioner Messiah is we've proposed some changes.

There are some things, for example, we're looking at the title.

We may make some slight tweaks to the title.

Okay.

But I I believe we provided a substitute version that substantively we could approve today.

This is correct.

What's been passed out?

Apparently we have the sub.

Okay.

Okay.

So to the extent that you as a body, this committee decides to make amendments and suggest changes, we'll gladly look at those and come back to Commissioner Messiah and through her to the committee itself.

But what you have in front of you, we may tweak the title, but substantively we could approve that as is.

Approve it as the form.

Understood.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

So number one is if you can do the research or just provide through email any references currently in section six sixteen pertaining to urban camping, vagrancy, and other behaviors that interferes with public safety and for other purposes.

So I have something to compare it to.

Um the next comment I have is um.

All right, C on page two, where it says warning, no person shall be arrested for violation of this section without having first received an oral or written warning and verbal offer of services to cease such unlawful comment or conduct.

So first point I would make is uh that having that word warning there is a little off-putting to me.

Maybe I'm the only one that perceives it that way, and I would suggest that be removed.

Number two is I I still have to digest this ordinance to be honest, but as I'm first time reviewing it, um I think that there may need to be a little bit more thought and intentionality around what that warning structure is.

So it says an oral or written warning.

I think it should be at minimum both.

I think there needs to be some paper trail on this that someone did receive a warning.

And then second is the verbal offer of services.

I think that also um verbal, certainly, but a written resource list.

And as recent as two weeks ago, I was in Brookhaven.

They provided their resource flyer that they give to the unhoused and the city of Brookhaven.

Now what, and I will, is Director Mitchell still here?

Oh, there he is.

I will get that copy.

I get an extra copy for you.

It is really outdated, actually.

It has uh information in there that no longer entities that no longer exist or numbers that are old, so we might want to consider updating all this information with our cities.

So that's that's another comment there as well.

I'm happy to jump in and talk about the warning if you want to address that.

So presently, and I um feel free to expound any further um interim county attorney Phillips, I'm gonna say county attorney Phillips um expound upon that.

And uh Mr.

Petties, if you um if you choose, but the gist of it is presently similar to trespassing that our officers have discretion to um offer a warning opposed to issuing any citations or arresting someone.

That's what is within the discretion.

So whereas there may be a situation where someone's in violation of this ordinance and in the officers and then entrusting in our um our law enforcement have a conversation with an individual that um exhibit or is exhibiting certain behaviors that's in contrary that's contrary to this ordinance, they can have a conversation with the individual and say this is not allowed, um, this isn't something that is um lawful to take place, and in such we ask you to stop.

So, say for instance, someone's coming out a store, and you have someone that's constantly panhandling each individual walking out of the store.

An officer has the discretion to advise the individual that what their their behavior they're doing is unlawful and ask them to stop, opposed to um, like I said, just issuing or having a citation or arresting them.

So that's what the warning is, not that we will immediately go into um issuing a written warning, but it provides an officer's and reconstitutes their discretionary ability as to how to move forward in addressing this um issue as they see fit.

All right, so um thank you for uh thank you for describing your I guess perspective on that.

I think what I find so off-putting about that is that you honestly just said it is that you first get a warning, a verbal warning, then you get a written warning, and then you're arrested.

So to me, it implies that step one of a step three process is that you will eventually get arrested.

So I'm thinking that maybe there is a different way of stating what your intention is here without calling it a warning.

Um my next question for you.

I mean, I'm sorry.

Um, excuse me, go ahead.

I just wanted to interject.

Sure.

I would like an opportunity to hear you out today.

Uh-huh.

Then maybe discuss some of these points with you before we make a change.

How, for example, warnings can work, oral, written, discretion by officers.

Um I'd prefer to do that offline as opposed to in public.

But I'd like to hear the rest of your observations.

We're making, we're taking notes, and I just wanted to acknowledge that that we we would like to discuss these with you, and we'll have more input.

Warning to me just really again translates as punitive in nature.

And I think that from what I'm reading, I'm gonna have to digest this, determine if I'll support it or not, but is that this is actually a more compassionate approach?

So I think the language needs to that the language needs to reflect that spirit of compassion that I believe is what's being set up in that.

But just make that note.

Understood.

Um, the next um point that I had was under E.

Prior notice will be provided a minimum of 24 hours before the removal of personal property, except where immediate safety concerns require urgent action.

My question to the sponsor and then to the law department is prior notice how.

I guess I'm just trying to say that maybe there's another approach here as well.

Maybe there's a little bit more time.

Or if it's 24 hours of someone's personal, it's noted personal property, that it goes to a locker system where then it would stay in this locker for up to say, I don't know, 72 hours after the initial 24 hours, but just some, I guess, um step that doesn't um immediately trash or throw away their personal property.

So 24 hours, then maybe you have 72 hours where you can go retrieve your items and then go on your merry way.

So that's another thought I have around this one.

Um happy to address that.

Thank you.

And then the next one is under F before the removal of any camping sites, a local government will engage in outreach efforts to inform individuals of available services and opportunities to retrieve their belongings, which kind of builds on E.

And so again, just just noting it in there, but um I guess what kind of what jumped out at me on this one is around the outreach efforts.

It just seems to me, and maybe Director Mitchell should address this one, is that um our outreach team is pretty limited.

And if we're adding additional work for the outreach component of community development, perhaps we're gonna need more outreach people, right?

More bodies out there to uh ensure that we do have full coverage of our unincorporate.

I'm assuming this is all unincorporated to CAV, is that correct?

Is that what your intention is?

So um, yes, and um again, happy to address because um going from a warning, it doesn't say that they shall be um arrested after a a warning.

I'm on F right now, actually.

I jumped all the way down to F.

Yes.

Okay.

And so um just taking them in the order that you provided.

Um it's not saying that a person shall be arrested, so I wanted to make that clear.

It's just saying that it will give warning, and how that you give warning is, and I use the analogy in terms of someone trespassing, is that an officer have the capacity to communicate to them that the behaviors they're engaging in is unlawful, so that they ask them to cease that particular behavior.

Then, in terms of providing notice, again, same idea.

Similar to the trespassing analogy, you advise them, similar to what officers do when it comes to other behaviors that they feel are illegal or maybe unlawful, they take the time to talk to them and they advise them that this is something that isn't um complicit with the the laws and the policies of the county, and they ask them to stop.

And that was E in terms of providing them notice.

Same idea they communicate to them.

And then lastly, in terms of F before any removal, again, they're letting them know that this is in violation of the axe them to cease to relocate and offer services and transportation.

We have frontline and a number of other organizations that the county works with, in addition to resources to provide that outreach and support for individuals.

And so, you know, again, it's ensuring that our officers um do have more of the teeth and um I don't it's not helpful um to our all of our constituents as a whole of our residents as a whole of DeCav County if our officers don't um feel as though they have the capacity without fear of or real apprehension of um moving forward with people that are engaging in certain behaviors such as vagrancy.

We have something that says don't unrest on arrest on how's and that yes, and sometimes our unhoused um conduct in certain behaviors that is not conducive.

This is giving our officers an ability to say certain behaviors aren't allowed, we're putting this on the books, we're warning them, we're getting them additional help if need be.

And just want to make sure there are any other questions related to that.

I'm sorry.

May I offer something?

Yes, sir.

I'm just trying to help as a body.

Of course.

Um the way this should work ultimately is it will be one part of a larger system of rules in our code.

And we've adopted relatively recently, I'll refer to Commissioner Patrick's um legislation on dealing with the unhoused, and that included making sure there were references and referrals available as we deal and engage with the unhoused.

And that included making sure there were references and referrals available as we deal and engage with the unhoused.

This would be another mechanism to deal with the unhoused and others who are in some way addressing any of the pieces that you see here.

It can be complex.

And then of course, any recommendations you have for changes will be able to opine about whether or not the law allows it, even where there's difference of opinion and and we have differences, but both are allowed.

I just wanted to give that context to the discussion.

I'm sensing there may there may be a need for us to do a deep dive, at least with you, Commissioner Spears.

I know we've already done one and we're continuing to do one with Commissioner Messiah, and we haven't even heard from the other two here now and and possibly your colleagues who aren't present.

So I want us to be careful.

We we've got to look at this and fit it into the larger picture with all of the legislation.

Wrap up my comments then, because I do recognize we haven't heard from two commissioners here.

Um under C warning, again, I go back to it.

No person shall be arrested for violation of this section without having first received.

That does imply arrest after a warning, whether it's verbal or in writing.

That's one.

And then two is um you mentioned referral.

So providing individuals with to inform individuals of available services and opportunities to retrieve their belongings.

I think we just need to be very thoughtful about how we're describing that.

So giving a eight and a half by 11 sheet of paper that has information on there where you can get food, where you can get X, Y, or Z, is different than what you said, sir, of receiving a referral to go to a specific place to go and help assess mental health needs or physical needs or whatever.

So again, I think that um this is you know certainly something that everybody should review and digest and provide their interpretation or suggestions before we um move forward on it.

So I would certainly entertain some time, sir, to sit down and talk to you about it, but I have at least from what I have read so far and had a chance to digest, giving you my thoughts to date.

Thank you much.

Yield back.

Thank you so much.

Uh Commissioner Lang Spears.

Commissioner Patrick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um really the the only question I have is going to be just making sure how this interrelates with the previous uh resolution that we had adopted.

Um attorney Phillips, if you're available.

One of my uh as I was saying, one of the concerns I have is just how this relates to what we've already and I know you're gonna do the review, but that was really my concern is just making sure this all works together.

Um we do not want to criminalize the homelessness.

Uh the obvious concern is is is um uh once you're in jail, there's the cost that the county has to bear, uh, but then there's also potential difficulties coming out of jail and trying to get stabilized and reintegrated back into functional society, which I think is what we'd like to see would happen with the homeless folks.

So um and then I guess just for the comment uh when I have seen other ordinances, and this is dating back in my career, you know, um warning was typically implied as this is there's a progressive step to saying we're going to have some type of government action, and it starts with a warning notice.

Something that's observed and is noted to that person that hey, there's there's a concern with you sleeping on the sidewalk or um pitching a tent in the in the MARTA uh bus stop, and that's um something the community wants cleaned up.

So just my tape.

Thank you so much, Commissioner.

Thank you much.

Commissioner uh Terry.

Yes, I'll be brief because this definitely does uh observe a little more um discussion, but I do think this ordinance could work um well if it was paired with the discussions we've been having in FAP committee around the creation of a diversion center.

That had a mental health diagnosis or a substance abuse diagnosis.

So in other words, homelessness is criminalized into CAB on private property.

This ordinance is suggesting that we address it from the public property side.

So the the biggest concern I would have is that right now we are paying the cost.

If that of those individuals that require additional treatment are at the jail, you cannot use any outside sources of funding like Medicare, Medicaid, DBHDD, it is a hundred percent jail funds, which means it's tax funds.

So we're spending about 28 million dollars a year housing those individuals in essence who are homeless, but now they're being housed at DeCap County jail.

So if we uh can take the approach and and Zach, this is kind of where you know we need to kind of put our heads together on the diversion center, you know, concepts moving forward and having some potential locations because if the officers responding to the pro private or public nuisance of urban camping or disorderly conduct conduct or a crisis for that matter, knew that they could go and do a 1013.

And so in essence they're detaining them, but they're not booking them at the jail, they're taking them to the diversion center, which um based on uh Kareem Martin from the jails analysis could be a 20 plus million dollar cost down to about an $8 million cost.

And so there is a cost savings delta there.

Um so I think that's that's kind of the main point.

And the only other thing I think that would be helpful for this ordinance is having DeCab County police and maybe in coordination with probably sanitations act uh develop a protocol for how we would go about clearing encampments.

Um the worst pay case scenario is what happened in Atlanta where someone was basically bulldozed over.

And so, you know, and I know that was a big encampment, and and it it just it's case by case.

Um we did have a good experience in Houston, Commissioner Long Spears, um, because their approach, I mean, is in essence what this ordinance is doing.

But Houston, of course, did more housing, transitional housing, diversion center.

So they were bolstering up the other end of you know, sort of the what would happen after someone might be um you know detained for pub uh public encampment.

Um but I think just um a really clear protocol for how we would um quote unquote clear an encampment.

Um uh so just understanding how that would actually be implemented, I think would be helpful in terms of informing this ordinance.

Um Commissioners, it does seem that the legislature, and I can't remember if I guess it passed this year, didn't it, Zach?

That um at least I think private individuals can sue the government if they if they don't believe that we're doing enough to address homelessness, you know, in sort of this vein.

And yeah, so we just we probably need to we do need to work on this.

So, Commissioner Massaia, I I do agree that this is something that should be in the code.

Um if we can kind of go in that compassionate route and also fiscally prudent, because again, we are paying the full freight to have someone in jail who might be waiting right now.

I think it's 500-day wait to get a uh a um what do you call it, a uh uh a valuation, thank you, from DBHD to go to their system.

And so they're just basically sitting there and or they're going to Grady or they're going to Emory and they're being treated, and then what do we say?

They say Zach, treat them and then street them.

And so you get the revolving revolving doors.

So it seems like the Georgia legislature is forcing our hand on this.

We're gonna have to come up with some framework of how we address public encampments, private and public property.

Um, but I do agree with the comments from the commissioners about uh finding a way to treat it as an opportunity for a more compassionate approach uh versus the um you know the incarceration.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, um, Commissioner Terry.

Can I offer one closing comment?

Yes, sir.

That was very helpful because in fact um I believe criminal trespasses is a state ordinance.

And it's criminal statute.

And one of the things that we need to look at based on this discussion is how this fits with state law and that comprehensive view.

So thank you for that.

I think that's going to be very helpful.

Yeah.

And I completely agree.

So HB 295.

And so um it's, you know, the the onus is coming uh more on a local level to address certain um challenges.

And again, I want to take it back to, you know, it's the behaviors and winding to get away from the idea that we are just trying to um create another system of um of punitiveness when it comes to unhoused.

That's not what we're doing here.

It is really just to um address some of the behaviors that are creating a challenge.

And so, you know, um we all have uh our constituents and experiences and um you know just in different things that they are taking issue with that they found more pervasive in certain areas versus others.

And so, you know, with the all the seniors that will, you know, communicate they have a hard time when they're going to the gas station even that are people that you know are inebriated um from drinks at the gas station um sometimes and when they come out or when even when they're going in, people are asking for money to buy another drink.

All right.

So I you know, it is certain behaviors that is um the challenge, and some folks um are experiencing mental health challenges, so I could appreciate wanting to expound and make sure services are available, but this is specifically against certain um behaviors that are just not in the benefit of public safety.

Another example it was an encampment blocking um the opportunity for EMS to get into um addressing a public safety issue.

And there was an encampment that was blocking their capacity.

And so just again, the behaviors, wanting to ensure that our uh those folks that are responsible for our public safety, public safety efforts do have teeth, and I completely agree with you know, having a conversation even further with sanitation and having some type of um policy in place in terms of clearing encampment.

With that, if there is um and we'll follow up and finish up online, but I'm glad that we got this conversation at least start it.

Um with that, I will open up the floor for motion.

There are no other points or questions.

Um what would you like your deferral?

This is your item.

It is really just dependent on your capacity to be able to get um the questions answered and to understand you know the direction that it's going in the um the focus and get to a point where you know you've been able to do your due diligence on it.

So I am open based on that.

But my preference would be um that we bring it back in two weeks if it's really just confirmed with legal as it relates to vagrancy and um understanding the placement of um shall and what responsibilities additional that we may put on officers in terms of providing uh resources for the um for folks that may be in violation of this.

I was thinking 60 days.

So how about 30 days instead of two weeks?

That gives me enough time to meet with the law department and I'm sure our other commissioners as well have been briefed on it so motion to defer for 30 days.

Commissioner Patrick.

For the purpose of discussion, second.

Sure.

If I could call uh attorney uh Phillips to the stand.

Uh are you able to do your research within two weeks or 30 30 days?

What is uh what what is what are you able to work with?

We we feel confident that what's in front of you is um something we can improve as the form.

We need to have discussions with commissioners that will dictate what we have to do going forward.

For example, in discussing these issues with Commissioner Spears, I don't know what recommendations she'll make about changes.

She may decide some of her concerns are satisfied based on the explanation we give.

She may decide she understands the explanation but recommends changes nonetheless.

Until we assess that, I can't tell you how long.

I I understand what Commissioner Messiah is suggesting.

We'll try to have that conversation, certainly within the two-week time frame.

And if we need to go beyond that, we will ask for another deferral.

So I do not have the time to have the conversation with the county attorney in the next two weeks, as I will be in Utah.

So I do need to be able to do that.

Now, Commissioner Spears.

No, seriously, I will be in Utah for a competition.

Zion National Park has.

So I understand what Commissioner Messiah is suggesting.

That's my answer.

I know it's long-winded, but to be fair, we just don't know what we're against.

And to be totally transparent.

And he's the one who's going to continue doing the heavy lift.

We obviously work as a team, so we'll work with him.

But Commissioner, we'll do the best we can to get the input from commissioners, assess that input, make recommendations to Commissioner Messiah and be ready as quickly as we can.

Okay.

All right.

So I'm gonna make another motion to defer just based on what was communicated for two weeks and to uh interim county attorneys.

Uh we'll just point I mean while I've been wanting to call you commissioner while it's everything, you know, um that we if we need to come back um and have further um you know if we need to defer it further, then we'll do that then.

But just given our opportunity since um there aren't any challenges specifically with legal, if we need to defer, we can do that.

But um for two weeks would be the ask, and then to come back just based on what he said.

You can't walk down two paths at the same time, my colleagues.

Um I don't see the harm in 30 days.

I really don't.

It's basically one more meeting and then two weeks after that.

Two days, two weeks.

There I don't know where the gavel's at.

Commissioner Johnson hasn't really used it as PF.

So it's yeah, I don't even it's sometimes it's tucked um behind the monitor.

Yeah.

I'll tell you what, we we we don't need the gap over.

Um Commissioners, it doesn't have to be a physical gavel.

However, Commissioner Messiah is the chair, you cannot make a motion in a committee.

You can accept motions and second.

Got it.

So it is passed over to Commissioner Tierry.

I'm all the committee.

It's not in the committee.

He's not on the committee, so you have to pass it to myself or Commissioner Patrick.

No.

Pass to you.

Um thank you.

Uh I I I would like to do the two weeks, but I also acknowledge a colleague is not going to be here and wants to put the time into it.

So um let's do the 30 days.

I'll I'll go ahead and second or stick with the second for the 30 days.

Um then um if you could please, Commissioner Spears, Commissioner Terry, if any conversations or concerns, please reach out to uh and uh so we can get that moving as quick as possible.

Um the proper motion, proper second.

All those in favor, please raise your hands out.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please like sign.

Or review.

I'm opposed to the 30 days.

I think that our schedules aren't depending on when we're traveling, particularly where we can make ourselves available via Zoom.

You don't get to actually tell me what my schedule is.

My good colleagues call to order.

As I am the chair acting chair of the committee, I would respectfully ask.

All right, it passed.

Um we know where one stands on that item.

Um Commissioner uh Masaya, turn the gavel back to you.

Thank you so much.

I sincerely appreciate it.

The next agenda item is 2026-0550.

I'm sorry, 2025-0015.

All commission districts and ordinance to amend the code of the Cab County, Georgia, Chapter 16 pertaining to regulation of sound and for other purposes.

Commissioner Terry.

I'm gonna acknowledge Commissioner Sterry as a sponsor ahead of um the committee members.

Commissioner Terry.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um yes, so I'll just um I'll throw a proposal out here for the committee to discuss and we can go from there.

So thank you, Attorney Petty, for working on this.

And you might want to come up because we might have some questions for you.

Um, but I think we're we're sort of on two tracks here with this ordinance.

We have DeCap County Police Department who would like to change a provision of the noise ordinance that allows them to respond to uh complaints after 11 o'clock at night.

And that would be a plainly audible within 300 feet of the property line of um the sort of receiving of the noise uh as opposed to going into someone's house.

So that is one sort of sort of box of a decision that I think the committee can sort of make independently.

The other part is what you do during the rest of the day.

And I am of the belief that we should give the decibel meters a try.

Now, Director Clark was so kind to provide the number of noise complaints that they have received, and it's not that many.

Maybe one or two percent-ish.

And so I think, and this is in the iterative process of legislation, that if we stuck with the decibels during the day, we would one be able to enforce the pending ordinances on the blasting, as well as data centers and construction noise, which all are portions of the code that have decibel levels.

And then by adding the section for law and equipment, we will create a very objective line of what is too loud versus what is an acceptable noise limit.

So I have asked the law department to uh work on sort of breaking up this agenda item into two separate sort of ordinance amendments for the committee to consider.

Um but I wanted to before they actually do it, I wanted to hear from the committee on both of those sort of policy decision points, um, and that will inform us how we move forward.

I'll yield back.

All right.

And um we also have uh director Clark is here, and so she'll have an opportunity um as when she comes in to be able to um to speak to it as well.

Well I just wanted to offer uh Commissioner Terry and I had a discussion about this on Saturday, and with Commissioner Terry's permission, I ask that we not draft another version until we're clear about what the body wants from us.

We've drafted a decimal level version.

We've drafted a clearly audible version, and I understand his proposal now, but before we draft again, we just wanted some direction on which way this is going.

We have the two separate versions.

What I would ask you to consider is instead of separating them, melding them.

Because what you're really suggesting, if I understand you, Commissioner, is making the approach for enforcement contingent on the time.

And the the night time would be something that we would have to look at maybe writing in having the distinction at a certain hour of the day such that it would be enforced one way in the evening, and you what you've asked for is decibel levels during what you characterized as the day, and then plainly audible at night.

But before we write anything again, Mr.

Petty can answer questions about the versions.

We just wanted you guys to decide which way we're gonna go.

Okay.

So that I'll put it back to you, Madam Chair and committee members what direction you think we should be going in.

If it um we could just hear since uh assistant Mr.

Pett.

Chief County Attorney Pettis has come up, and we can um ask was there something specifically that you wanted to share or that to add or stop.

So that's so one of the options that we were talking about is having a separate uh standard at night and at that time.

That is the what we have right now proposed.

So at that one, there's a there's uh um hundred feet from the source of the sound at night and then the decibel level um during the day.

The other option is to do 300 feet during the day and not do decibel levels.

Thank you.

So Mr.

Petty just told on me.

I was trying to avoid writing another one unnecessarily.

But yes, we've we've covered a variety of options here.

I I understand, I get it.

Um Commer Fair, did you that's that's good.

All right.

Um then I'm gonna go to committee members, Commissioner Patrick.

Do you have a question or comment?

Yeah.

Um back to my days as a staff person, uh, that would receive uh code enforcement complaints, noise being one of them at times.

Um to me, I would just much rather have one standard or one approach, one methodology, and I would stay with the decibel meter reading system.

Um we need more officers, fully support hiring more officers, whether those are code enforcement officers or police officers for that.

Uh we have the equipment if we need more equipment, if we need to get people trained.

I think that's a reasonable expectation for those employees to be able to carry out those functions when it comes to code enforcement complaints such as noise.

Uh when I looked at the data that was emailed over, I think it was one or two complaints per day over the past uh two years.

So you know, I I what I was hoping was to have also a map to show where exactly these complaints are, um, so we know sort of a more localized approach as to how to address this, but but at the end of the day, you know, I've I've been involved, and I think this is now the fifth fourth or fifth version of a noise ordinance in my career.

And and um at the end of the day, we need neighbors that can learn to work with one another, and if they can't, then we have either code enforcement or the police department coming in.

But it's better to have the objective standard, and I think that's met by the decibel mode reader.

Um that's where I stand.

Thank you so much, uh, Commissioner Patrick, and I actually see uh Director Clark um there in the back, and I'm sorry, I was looking that way at Mrs.

Atwaters and then didn't realize, and I apologize that you're in the back.

Is there anything that you wanted to share um related to this?

So that's deferring to the account.

I have been given permission by Ms.

Clark.

Um Ms.

Clark and the administration had proposed fine amounts, and I asked their permission to not write them in until we were clear about what the next draft should say.

And all I've been doing is trying to wait and produce one more draft for you after decisions are made about what it should say.

So we we can share those with you, but we'd really like to wait and draft whatever you guys decide after you decide it.

Thank you so much, interim county attorney.

Um Commissioner Long Spears.

Thank you very much.

Um I am in agreement with Commissioner Patrick.

I think uh given the options that attorney Petty gave us, you said clearly audible or the decibel version.

I am certainly leaning towards the decibel version.

I think clearly audible is too subjective, because something that might be loud to me might not be loud to her.

Yeah.

Might be overly loud to you.

You might feel like a bomb went off.

I mean, it I think it's just incredibly subjective.

And I'm also thinking about um when if a citation is given for being clearly audible, how would the courts handle that?

So how would the magistrate court handle a clearly audible?

So I think that perhaps we need to uh sounds like she might be in agreement too.

But how do we maybe we need to check with, say, Judge Anderson?

May I?

Go ahead.

I I will not speak for any court or judges, but what's fundamental in that approach is having a human who can testify that they were in a certain position and heard it.

And then there's a definition that's written in to the draft that we prepared when we started writing this, that was a part of what had to be defined.

I just think that to having a decibel reader, the decibel reader, to me that just I'm not a lawyer, not a judge, but would be more defensible in court.

And you can actually purchase these decibel readers.

I looked it up while I was at ACCG, and there are really many different tiers, four or five different tiers.

But if you get the top tier decibel reader, it's price between three and five thousand dollars.

That is actually um the reading of it is admissible in court.

And that to me just makes a lot more sense to to just provide the detail around it.

So repeat offenders, we can get them.

We can stop them so they stop annoying their neighbors.

I I want to be very clear.

I'm asking that the law department not take a position.

We're merely explaining what we see in the law.

And I want to remind you, Commissioner Spears, of what I understood to be the explanation from Chief Adrick about clearly audible, particularly in the evening, Commissioner Terry.

He did explain from this podium that his officers would be called, and a neighbor who was enduring the noise would have them come to their home, and a deterrent may be they don't want the person making the noise to know that they actually called.

Oh, I'm sure we're not gonna be able to do that.

But what I understood from him is their officer would stand there at their home, be invited in likely, and while standing in the home, hear the noise from next door or down the block or whatever the circumstance was, and be prepared to testify after that that at 1215 in the morning, I was next to Commissioner Spears' home and I heard the blaring rap music.

Um that would be their testimony, and that would be plainly audible.

They heard it.

It's not an argument that it's better than decibel readers or not at all.

It's just what I understood to be the explanation if that helps you.

I also think it really kind of opens us up to neighbor disputes.

And a few of us chatted about this earlier today, and you know, I share a fence with X person and I don't like them.

So maybe what I'm actually hearing is just normal conversation and it's annoying me.

So I pick up the phone and it's audible to me at that point.

I might not like it.

But it's audible.

I might not like that neighbor.

But Mr.

Petty, you did say something earlier.

Um you said if it's one route, it's 100 feet, it's the other route, it's 300 feet.

Could you repeat that for me?

Yeah, I apologize.

So if we were only going to do um plainly audible during the day and night, uh-huh.

It would be a hundred feet at night and three hundred feet during the day.

Understood.

Okay.

Okay.

So it's a little you can be a little louder during the day, essentially.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

All right.

Um so this will be another item.

Uh interim county attorney.

I got your title right this time.

Um if I have a very long law list, by the way, and you know I do, and let's go ahead and add this to that law list to go through.

Um I do have some more comments.

I did a reading when I was the ACCG, and I'll hold that to that private offline discussion.

Thank you and yield back.

Okay, so I think what I heard is y'all like the decibel meter standard during the day.

And then at night, because office because co-compliance doesn't work at night, right?

Past 8 o'clock, y'all are clocked out.

So at 11 01 is when the nighttime noise kicks in.

Um, right, Attorney Petty?

I think I got that right.

So daytime sound is from 7 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

from Sunday through Thursday and 7 to midnight on Friday and Saturday.

Okay, gotcha.

So that's the so once the night time hits in, police will be responding, and they have requested not to have to worry about a decibel reading, just in I think that makes sense because if you're trying to sleep and it's clearly audible or plainly audible from you know, like standing in your front yard, then that could be um that would allow police to basically go to the violating party and say, can you please keep it down um versus going into someone's house?

So are there any objections to going just going that route?

I I think government's better when it's simple.

So I just stick with the decibel across the board.

Well, I think we're so we're trying to make it simple because police have said people don't let them go in.

So we can't enforce the current ordinance.

That's the problem we can.

We can enforce it.

Well, no, police said Commissioner Patrick, could you talk a little louder?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Now we're talking about sound, but I actually couldn't hear you.

We we can enforce it, that's the thing.

It's just we have this is my perception.

We have a staffing issue, as in we don't have enough officers either during the day or during the evening.

It's not a staff.

And then there's saying that they they can't people won't let them go into their house.

Okay.

I I can have my perspective, right?

And you said you're not going to be able to do that.

Guys, one talking at a time, please.

Commissioner Bachelor.

I'll give my perspective on how I see things.

And since I've got about 20 years of local government experience, 14 of that dealing with complaints like neighbors who don't get along, I'm comfortable saying the decibel standard is my preferred option.

I'm with you.

Thank you.

I agree.

Okay.

So just to be clear, the at night, it's a different situation.

So you're saying you want us to create a new decibel standard for night.

Because right now there's no decibel standard at night.

It just says plainly audible from inside someone's home.

So that's the existing law.

And police have said that they cannot enforce the existing law.

So you're saying you want me to change nighttime noises to a decibel amount.

And then the officers need to actually across the board.

So does the decibel meter need to be is what we're given half.

So is the decibel meter from if we could just one speaking at it?

So is the decibel meter at night.

Commissioner Terry, give me one second.

Commissioner Patrick presently has the floor, and I know that you he's you're answering questions, and then he's speaking, so I just want to make sure that he is yielding for you to then answer questions.

And he's going to answer your question so that we're not speaking over each other.

So if he is I I've said basically I'd like to stick with a decibel standard.

All right.

If there's not a decibel standard for the evenings, let's get it where it's consistent with the mornings.

Commissioner Terry.

Okay.

So I'm sorry.

Are you yielding um for Commissioner Terry now?

I just want to make sure and I'll come back to you if need be, but I just want to make sure so that I'm clear as to who has the floor.

Commissioner Terry.

Okay.

Um Zach.

Sorry to have to bring you here to mediate this because I've heard numerous times up on this board, we should defer to the departments on how they are going to implement the law.

So I just I would first let's be consistent.

If we're going to pass a law, let's make sure it can be followed by the administration that has to enforce the law.

So I mean, I guess I I mean if Chief Pedrick says the current ordinance cannot be enforced, then you're saying let's just make it decibel across the board.

So I mean, I guess we can give that a try.

I mean, it's up to you.

I mean, if the board if the board wants to pass a decibel meter across the board, Zach, I think you've got to give us a plan for how we're going to have decibel meters with police and code compliance.

Is that fair to say?

Well, if the if the board Well, let me just start with my conversations with both Director Clark and Chief Pedrick, they both emphasize the desire to have plainly audible.

Okay.

That that is their professional recommendation.

If the board uh made the determination that we wanted to do something different, um, then we would evaluate how do we implement that.

Um it would not be it likely wouldn't be practical, but every vehicle had a uh decimal reader, decibel reader, but maybe it could be.

Uh it's it's just a cost.

And then it's the maintenance cost and the calibration cost.

And training.

Every vehicle will have an officer who can listen.

Okay.

So that's real time all the time.

Uh that capacity exists with each of the staff members.

So could you so again, committee members, I'm gonna need so this is in y'all's committee, so if you would like to make a recommendation on the decibel standard across the board, I think that would help the administration respond to the you know the the pending policy.

And then Zach, I think then you need to give us some cost factors and things if you don't mind.

So um so I again I'm I'm fine honestly to try different approaches.

I think the the issue we're trying to deal with is the existing ordinance is very difficult to enforce.

And so we're trying something different.

We're just changing the law to make it something that can be more enforceable.

So um I'll leave it with the committee members.

Um if there was a motion to um in essence request these changes, um, and then I can be I'll be happy to bring them back with law department's guidance with an amended version for y'all to act on at you know the next available meeting.

So I I just wonder uh have you yield uh because I'm not calling for a motion right now.

Um but I I want to make sure that you have the time you have the floor.

So are you yielding?

Yes, I'm good.

Okay.

I I I would ask Commissioner Terry that you take one additional step with your colleagues.

We need to be clear about what the decibel level will be in the ordinance.

Is it gonna be the same at all the time?

We just need to be clear because we want to come back with what they're asking for.

All right.

Yes.

Thank you so much.

So what I'm hearing, just so that you know, um we are clear and I'm clear um as the chair here is that uh when it comes to Chief Pedrick and Director Clark, the preference would be to use the plainly audible standard.

However, uh based on uh considerations related to the execution, the enforcement um core and uh the colleagues um that the preference is that it is done by decibel meter.

Um also taking into account what Commissioner Long Spears has um shared with her research um related to the decibel meter and just utilizing um what interim county attorney has shared, we'd have to also determine whether or not there is gonna be a difference um between the hours of 7 and 11 or you know, a nighttime hours versus daytime hours.

Additionally, we wouldn't need to determine what those um what the actual readings would be in addition to any specific hours.

So that is something that our um law enforcement will be able to execute on.

Um I want to take this back just briefly um as a point of privilege to the spirit of why this agenda item was originally written.

And that was just based on um some of the sound from the gas-powered landscaping um devices, and it is uh now warped into um a a different purpose and a different agenda in and of itself, and just hearing um our legal in terms of the several times they've had um rewrites of this particular issue, and I support um ensuring that we have it clear um in terms of the purpose and what specifically with all of the details is possible.

Um with that using the numbers, uh Commissioner Long Spears has shared between three to five thousand dollars for each decibel meter.

Um at the low end, um just roughly at the 600 officers that we have presently, uh give or take or few, we're looking at 1.8 million dollars for the low end at $3,000, and at the high end of $5,000 that Commissioner Long Spears has shared, we're looking at $3 million.

And I'll tell you that I am not in support at all of having unfunded mandates.

So to the extent that this is something that we're expecting to be executed, then we also need to determine how we're gonna actually pay for not just those decibel meters, but also pay for training, pay for maintenance and calibration of those things.

And so what I would suggest is that um we might need to withdraw this at this point, um, get feedback in from all of the colleagues, make sure we have specifics as to the purpose, all of the details, how we're gonna fund what we're gonna do, have the conversations, and then present a uh an agenda for us to um actually pass.

Um I am open to your thoughts, but it seems like we uh there's just so many different components that we're trying to figure out in the short um time frame of this agenda item.

Um with that, I presume you have a comment, Commissioner Terry.

So do you yeah.

I'll be very brief.

Um the the original intent was to address gas-powered and other leaf blowers being very noisy, and then we added in the police just because they heard we were discussing about it, discussing this, and they said, hey, could you help us with the nighttime noises?

So we didn't we didn't change the nature of the ordinance that drastically.

It's still the core is daytime landscape equipment.

We just added a small piece for the nighttime noises.

So it hasn't changed dramatically.

And I in terms of withdrawal, I mean I I think it's pretty straightforward.

I mean, just if if y'all don't if you have an opinion, let's just vote on it, and if we don't have a majority, we can go back to the drawing board.

But I don't want to withdraw it just because we can't hold two different concepts in our mind at the same time.

And that was honestly why I said let's break it apart, because then we can have two separate discussions, and maybe one is more clear than the other.

Um, but I keep getting pushback saying don't separate it.

So I'm trying to make it simple for folks to keep it one decision here, one decision there.

Um but I heard a majority of the committee say they like the decibel standard, and so if the committee would make the recommendation, I'd be happy to work with my co-sponsor, Commissioner Long Spears, come back within two weeks, work with Mr.

Petty and come up with the committee requested changes, and then we can go from there.

Do you yield back, sir?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

Um again, um in calling for it, would take me open the floor um for a motion, but the suggestion in terms of withdrawing and mentioning that it is transcended to something else wasn't to be derogatory, it's just saying that it is taking on another purpose, and it seems like there needs to be concerted effort to focus on that purpose and address the particular issue.

And so since the discussions, because we're no longer having conversations about the um about gas power in any of the discussions we've been having recently is not have been about um gas powered landscape maintenance devices at all.

And even as it's being suggested that things be broken apart, it may be beneficial to actually just address the issue at hand as it relates to the noise that the officers has been experiencing and what we've been spending time constantly talking about, and then write in specifics as to decimal meters, if we're gonna utilize that, at what decimal, how we're gonna pay for it, the training, the maintenance, the collaboration, and the purchase of, and also actually also have a funding mechanism um and an estimate as to the cost to the county for that particular item.

But that's just you know, my opinion you asked for my thoughts as a committee member um and chair, just wanting to share that.

But um and if anyone else has some anything additional, the floor is yours.

Any other questions or comments?

Seeing none, we can open up the floor for a motion.

No, I completely understand that, but I was just advised.

I cannot make a motion as chair.

So I am just I'm deferring to my um committee members because I believe there's something additional.

I'm giving him the opportunity to do just that.

Uh our next meeting is the 21st.

And that's a cow.

Um let's hold it in committee until uh May 26th.

So moved.

So moved.

And thank you sincerely for that motion.

So moved.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you so much.

The next agenda item.

Okay.

And uh Commissioner Terry, thank you so much for joining PEX.

I appreciate it.

Just want to make sure people recognize in the card.

Thank you.

No, I'm not gonna adjourn.

We have we have let's uh I I've got uh another thing I've got to get to myself.

So let's um let's defer the remaining items to the next uh so your motion is to um defer, give me one quick second.

Let me take a look as chair as to what those agenda items are and then make a determination as to whether or not we're gonna go ahead and call for adjournment.

That's fine.

Um since is the will of the other part of uh the committee that it is left willing to defer the rest of the agenda items uh to the next uh pecs meeting.

So the next uh PECS meeting.

Um and that will be contingent on what our upcoming um what that's gonna look like in terms of the agenda and where we are in terms of addressing some of the questions because even like uh the last item, I know there were some additional questions that we had in terms of um where some of the the the data related to where some of the complaints were coming from.

So um defer to the next and just not making promises just in case we have you know some additional things and not wanting to keep on and maybe be in the pace of other things that we need to address.

So uh I appreciate that.

And I second okay, madam chair, real quick um on the science for Georgia.

I did we did email the response on the questions from the last committee from Science for Georgia.

Um so if you can just take a look at what they they sent in before the next committee member meeting, please.

Um if you wouldn't mind bumping that one more time, I'd appreciate it.

All right.

Uh open up the final motion of the day.

Uh motion to adjourn.

Second.

All those in favor?

Yep.

I thank you so much.

Appreciate you all joining us today.