Good afternoon.

I am Ladina Bolton, your Super District 7 Commissioner, and this is the ERPS Committee, Employee Relations and Public Safety.

Also on that committee with me are Commissioners Marita Davis Johnson and Commissioner Nicole Masaya.

Joining us today, we have Commissioner Ted Terry of Super District 6.

We are gonna do a bit of moving around on the agenda.

We do have a discussion that we're eager to have, but we're gonna wait on Commissioner Longspears.

She'll be here momentarily.

So at this time we'll start at the top of the agenda item 2026 0990, which is which are the minutes from the May 21st ERPS meeting.

Do we have a motion for that item?

Make a motion to approve uh 26099 0.

The minutes for the March 21st 2026 meeting.

Second, all in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries recommendation for approval.

Moving along to item 20 under fire rescue, previously heard items.

Item 2026 0903.

All commission or commission districts four, five, six, and seven.

This is for fire stations 16 and 27.

Street light street lighting lease agreement.

Good afternoon, sir.

Good afternoon, madam chair.

Uh as you stated, this is for the lease agreement for the street lighting for uh the new builds of fire station 16 and fire station 27.

Um it seeks to uh uh allow for a spLOS funding for the initial payment for these uh street lights and for the monthly payment for that with the lease with uh Georgia Power.

Okay, I see the amounts listed on here fire station 16, 540 per month, fire station 2781 per month.

Were there any questions or comments from committee members?

Commissioner Davis Johnson, no and Commissioner Patrick of District 1 has joined us for our ERPS meeting.

Did you or Commissioner Terry?

Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, I think uh Zach, you were y'all were looking into seeing about whether the uh metering of our own lights uh would be a greater cost savings than the Georgia Power standard streetlight agreement.

I did forward after the last committee meeting where this came up, um, the email from Director Pelton, former director Pelton of Transportation.

Uh it was related to street lights, um, I think along a highway.

And uh he did note that the transportation department had worked out um like a meter as opposed to the street light tariff.

And so the the the goal of me asking about this was that we would get more favorable uh terms on the power uh the cost of powering those street lights.

So just wanted to see if there was any update on the other ways that are in our toolbox to deal with street lights.

So quick answer is yes, there are other ways, but not in this situation.

So what Director Pelton was talking about on Buford Highway and on I-20 were agreements between DeCab County and Georgia DOT where the county pays the light bill, Georgia DOT install the equipment.

And in one case, it was upgrading from sodium vapor, high pressure to LED.

The rest of the street lights we put in, like at Fire Station 7 in the public right away on local streets, you have to use Georgia Power because at the present time the county has no lighting division.

So we don't have a maintenance division that replaces the polls, installs the equipment, and we're using Georgia Power polls.

So for them to allow us, they wouldn't allow you to put your lights on their pole easily.

Okay, and we'd have to put our own polls in, and then there's a setback issue.

So this is for the foreseeable future the most efficient and cost-effective way.

Okay, all right.

So, madam chair, I think that makes sense to me.

So um that was I think that was probably the confusion I had.

So if we were installing our own lights, like kind of those like streetscapes lights that you see in some uh corridors.

If we were those were our lights, then we can manage them right because there are short distance separation the top of the pedestrian fixture we call it and the bottom of the transmission wire, the 10-foot clear zone.

Or for instance, in a park, I believe some of the park street lighting in the parking lots are metered with the park as a whole.

Gotcha.

Okay.

So these are basically just for the polls.

This is just a standard street light in a in a in a in a community.

Okay.

All right.

I'm good.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right.

Seeing no other requests to make comment or ask questions about this item.

Do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

260687.

Second, 40903.

All in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

I'm sorry.

No problem.

Next item 2026 0687.

All commission districts change order number four to contract number 1210840.

Inspection care maintenance and cleaning of personal protective equipment.

This is a multi-year for use by the Department of Fire Rescue to obtain inspection care maintenance and cleaning of personal protective equipment, ratifying term increase, and in an increase in contract funds and term through October 27, 2026.

Awarded to North America Fire Equipment Company, Inc., amount not to exceed $75,000.

Yes, madam chair, as you uh as you stated, this is for the inspection decontamination, cleaning, and repair of our what we call our PPE.

That's our turnout coat and our turnout pants.

Primarily, we get them inspected professionally cleaned, decontaminated twice a year for all of our sets of turnout gear that are out there in the field.

Um so we are currently out to bid for this contract, and this is just a term increase just to allow that bid process to complete.

And we anticipate completion of that bid by this what is that October 27th date.

We should be ready to go with the new contract.

Wonderful.

Any other questions or comments?

Do you have anything?

I don't have any commissioner Patrick.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a quick question.

When uh when the officers or when the firefighters come back from a call, um, do you guys not watch off wash off the suits at that point?

I thought that there was contamination you wanted to make sure it didn't get into their lungs or on their person.

That that's a fantastic question.

So we do gross decontamination on the scene, which is a scrub down with soapy water, which gets rid of I I'll give you an approximation of about 90 percent, 90 some odd percent of the particular matter that that can get into the gear.

However, there are still remnants and everything to say.

We keep two sets of turnout gear so they can switch into a clean set of turnout gear.

Okay, but this is this is mostly for a professional like higher level of decontamination as well as a full inspection to make sure there's no damage to it, any of the connections or or the Velcro repairs, any of that stuff as well.

So thank you much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Any questions or comments from you guys?

No.

And Commissioner Long Spears has joined us.

Thank you, ma'am.

So at this time, do we have a motion for 0687?

A motion to approve 0687.

Second, all in favor, aye.

Motion carries.

And the next item 2026 0303, all commission districts.

This is also a change order, number one to contract number two zero zero zero four three two, self-contained breathing apparatus, purchase, repair, and maintenance.

This is an annual contract with four options to renew for use by the Department of Fire Rescue Services.

This contract consists of the purchase repair maintenance and management of the county's scuba equipment.

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

This request also seeks to increase the contract funds and term through October 30th, 2026, awarded to MES service company LLC, amount not to exceed 80,000 dollars.

Again, as you stated, uh Madam Chair, this is for the maintenance purchased and uh repair of our SCBA, which is our breathing apparatus, uh, our air packs and our air bottles, we wear them and breathe through them inside of any type of hazardous environment that we encounter, and this is also an extension to allow for a bid process for the next contract.

Okay.

Any questions or comments from commissioners?

No.

Okay, do we have a motion for this item?

No, sir.

I move that um 03.

03.

We approved.

Second, all in favor.

Aye.

Motion carries recommendation for approval.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

So we're gonna jump down to Board of Commissioners, District 2 item two zero two six zero five nine six.

If you're ready, ma'am.

Okay, and this is on page two.

So we've only skipped one item.

That's the district one item.

We're now on the district two item.

This is an ordinance to regulate the restraint and transportation of animals and for other purposes.

And we're gonna take a few minutes to talk through this item.

This will be our first discussion, first hearing of this item zero five nine six.

Thank you so much, madam chair, and um fellow committee member commissioner Davis Johnson for hearing this item in the ERPS committee today.

Um the red shirts, our decab animal advocates are present with us.

Raise your hands.

Thank y'all always for being here in support of our furry friends.

We have um through our legislative process, we have submitted a ordinance to strengthen the current tethering ordinance.

And we are um blessed today.

We have some folks that are able to present to us.

So, madam chair, are you comfortable if that presentation uh begins shortly?

Yes.

Fantastic.

Um, one question I have, I believe, for possibly Mr.

Allen.

Um, we have, I believe, a presenter online.

Okay, fantastic.

Um, are you with us?

Hello, hello, hello, tech check.

Lisa.

I am.

Uh there's the video.

Awesome.

Lisa Smile it.

Um, and I was planning to only present if there are questions uh that the committee has, or if there's something that um I hear that I I can address that that um isn't being addressed otherwise.

But thank you.

Well, thank you so much, uh, Professor Milot for tuning in all the way from sunny Vermont right now.

All right, if our presenters would please come to the PAC podium and begin with the presentation.

If we would also just introduce yourself so that my colleagues um are familiar with who you are and why you are here supporting the strengthening of this ordinance.

Thank you so much.

I yield back, madam chair.

Thank you, ma'am.

And you can go ahead when you're ready.

All right.

Um good afternoon, Commissioners.

Thank you for letting us say a few words.

My name is Sanali Sandane, and I serve as the chair of DeCab Animal Services Advisory Board.

I am here today in support of the revised tethering ordinance.

Experts agree that most effective and enforceable tethering ordinance is a complete ban on unattended tethering, including the use of running cable line and trolley system.

This clear standard allows enforcement, animal enforcement to identify violations more easily and consistently.

These experiences have given me significant insight into the shortcomings of the current ordinance and the importance of adopting a stronger, more enforceable one.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Before I explain why these amendments are necessary, I want to show you what tethering looks like in DeCap County.

Every dog shown in these photos and videos is from DeCab.

I got it.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, you can move to slide uh three, please.

Oh, I can now, okay.

All right, right place.

Okay.

So there are three key reasons this revision matters.

First, tethering is a common factor in neglect and cruelty cases.

Second, the current allowance for timed tethering on cable lines and trolley systems is ineffective and difficult to enforce.

And third, unattended tethering or unsupervised tethering raises significant public safety concerns.

I will discuss the first two points in greater detail now, and Peggy here will address the public safety aspect.

So first, tethering is a recurring factor in many neglect and cruelty cases in DeCap County.

Incident reports of neglect and cruelty cases repeatedly show dogs living for extended periods of on tethers unattended without adequate socialization, shelter, or care.

Tethering often occurs alongside broader patterns of neglect and abuse.

A tether significantly restricts a dog's movement and can become tangled around objects, potentially causing injury or strangulation.

Dogs that are continuously tethered are also more likely to be exposed to extreme weather, have limited access to food or water, experience isolation, and live in unsane unsanitary conditions.

Over time, this physical and social deprivation can lead to increased behavioral issues, including fear-based aggression.

A clear example of this is an open case right now in DeCab with 12 dogs seized from a single property last October.

These dogs are still waiting for their day in court, but it is obvious to anyone who sees them that they suffered prolonged social and physical deprivation and are unlikely to have positive outcomes even once released.

One of the dogs in this case has not left his kennel since intake in October because of safety reasons.

Meaning a dog may remain unattended on a tether for up to 12 hours a day, so long as it is not between the hours of 10 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

But is animal enforcement going to monitor between 10 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

to see whether a dog is still attached to a trolley?

The answer is no.

And is the dog often still on that trolley in the middle of the night?

Unfortunately, the answer many times is yes.

In practice, this provision has proven both ineffective and difficult to enforce.

Animal enforcement officers are frequently placed in the position of trying to determine how long a dog has been tethered and whether the owner technically falls within the allowance time frame.

For this reason, the revised ordinance removes the allowance for timed tethering on running cable line or trolley system.

I clearly also remember another case in DeCab from a few years ago involving an address animal enforcement visited frequently.

Officers even provided the owner with a trolley system in an attempt to bring him into compliance.

The reality, however, was that dog and the dog who came after her remained on that trolley day and night until that animal was finally seized, and by then it was too late.

That dog was slated for behavioral euthanasia until a seasoned rescue intervened just minutes before the euthanasia was scheduled to occur.

He was one of the lucky ones.

Most dogs in similar situations do not make it out.

Third, tethering creates public safety concerns for both animals and community.

Dogs that are continuously tethered often experience stress, anxiety, frustration, and lack of socialization, which can contribute to an increased risk of biting incidents.

So now Peggy will speak more specifically about those public safety impacts.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good afternoon, commissioners.

My name is Peggy McCarthy, and I'm a volunteer board director for the Georgia Pet Coalition and a property owner in DeCab County.

I'm here today to urge the commissioners to adopt the proposed amendments due to the risk that unattended tethering poses to public safety.

Here are three key points.

First, manufactured dog tieouts, including trolleys, typically carry a warning label on the packaging, advising consumers of the following.

Always supervise a tethered dog.

Do not leave unattended.

Not every dog can be safely tethered.

Dogs with known aggression must never be left on tie outs, trolleys, or chains.

It's important to note that a tether is only a form of restraint.

It does not provide a complete barrier between a dog and a person.

The risk of injury to a person increases when there is no supervision of a tethered dog by a capable adult.

As an example, if you look in the upper left corner of the slide, a woman in Columbus, Georgia was inspecting a property when she was attacked by the next door neighbor's chain dog.

It was a long chain.

The victim was transported to a hospital where her lower leg was amputated.

The dog was seized by animal control and euthanized.

The woman and dog were both victims of an irresponsible dog owner.

In addition, dogs can break free from tethers and run loose.

My second point is that animal behaviorists and veterinarians acknowledge that long periods of unattended tethering contribute to fear, stress, and resource guarding in dogs, which can trigger a fight or flight response that may result in a bite because the dog cannot engage in flight.

Because of this, the CDC advises against tethering an unsupervised dog and instead recommends that dogs be confined behind a secure fence or kennel to reduce the risk of negative encounters with people and animals.

The most striking finding was the lack of supervision at the time of attack in 87% of the cases, which is represented by the bar on the far left.

Moving left to right on the graph, other preventable factors included the lack of spay neuter, the lack of socialization, a history of mismanagement by the owner, and that final orange bar, close to one-third of the dogs were on a chain at the time of the attack.

Sadly, children under the age of five made up almost half the victims in this study.

While each factor alone may not trigger a dog bite, the cooccurrence of two or more factors increases the likelihood of a serious or fatal dog bite.

Given the prevalence of owner negligence in over four million dog bites annually in the U.S., lawmakers should consider policies that promote responsible pet ownership and protect public safety.

Pet ownership is an ongoing responsibility, not a passive activity, such as occurs with unattended tethering.

To date, ordinances banning unattended tethering of dogs have passed in at least 13 Georgia counties, which are listed on your fact sheet.

Is that setting minimum space requirements for enclosures for dogs are recommended when implementing a ban on unattended tethering to ensure that dogs are not inhumanely confined in small spaces such as crates?

That provision is also included in the proposed amendments.

In conclusion, the well-being of citizens is safeguarded when officials also address the well-being of companion animals.

Thank you for your consideration of these amendments and setting an example for other Georgia counties.

Thank you.

Is at the end of the presentation, or is someone else coming up to speak?

Okay.

Commissioner Long Spears, can you talk through the ordinance, the proposed ordinance amendment so commissioners will know what are the suggested changes?

Absolutely.

And again, thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to discuss this amendment and the ERPS committee today.

So ultimately, what we're trying to do is prohibit all unattended tethering in DeCab County.

I think that the video was a reflection of what happens to these dogs when they are stuck on a tether on a cable line, a trolley system for hours, days, weeks, months.

The point that was made by Ms.

McCarthy about dogs becoming more aggressive the longer that they are being tethered is true, and that becomes a public safety and a public health concern that this board and all members of the governing authority, I believe, need to take incredibly seriously.

If you look at the ordinance, again, we currently do have an ordinance.

And so we can skip to the middle of page two, it does give you give me if you'll just give me a few minutes, sir.

Um, it does give you the definition of tether there.

Then you want to go down a little bit further on the bottom half of page two.

It does talk about the actual housing for the dog itself.

I we're talking about housing a lot in DeCav County, and so we're also talking about it for our furry friends, is that we ensure a proper enclosure for the dog with minimum open space requirements based on weight and the number of dogs confined in the enclosure.

If you skip to page three, um, there is some information at the top, which is talking about tethering of an animal is prohibited and an animal's owner shall ensure that the owner's animal is not tethered unless such tethering is on a temporary basis while the animal is attended by the owner.

So to re-emphasize that point, that's simply stating that if you're in your yard and you're doing some gardening and you're there for 30 minutes, um, that is acceptable because it's a temporary basis and the animal is being attended.

Um there is talking about a properly fitted harness collar.

The video, unfortunately, um sh it was a very bright light on what happens to a dog when their collar is too tight and it's never taken off, and they're they're tethered, they are they're you know, again, they're kind of fighting the device itself, and that what what creates unfortunately the physical damage to the animal's neck.

And I don't know how you all felt about that, but that was painful to see, and I can only imagine the pain that those animals have been in, quite honestly.

Um the middle of page three talks about tethering an animal in any other of the following ways is prohibited.

Um, I will point out by tethering two animals or more together is a is prohibited.

Uh I won't read them all for you.

Y'all can read them yourself.

Um by attaching more than one animal to the device by which the animal is tethered.

Um, number three, use of a device that, after including all collars, harnesses, fasteners, weights, accessories, have their weight borne by the animal weighs more than 5% of the body weight of the animal.

And so you can continue reading through that.

If you move to page four of this, um, we'll skip down to the bottom half of page four.

It's talking about the transportation of animals and open air vehicles.

Um, there is some language here that it's not allowed to do that, basically.

And so it's in essence saying you can't have the dog in the bed of the truck and they're just where it could possibly fly out, jump out, and that would create a public safety challenge to any residents or those that are driving in vehicles around that vehicle.

Um, if you skip to the effective date, one of the reasons I brought up the revised minimum space requirements is that if this passes on Tuesday, and my hope sincerely is that it will, or as soon as possible, um, is that week it will become effective upon adoption, with the exception of the revised minimum space requirement, which allows for six months to uh for the pet owners to ensure that they have they are meeting that new requirement around space.

So, in a nutshell, that is the um ordinance that is up for discussion in the ERPS committee today.

And before I move on, uh Miss Milet, Professor Milot is joining us from Vermont.

And so, Professor Milo, do you have anything to add to what I or the other presenters said?

Yes, uh, just a little bit.

So thank you very much, Commissioner Long Spears.

Um, Lisa Mylet, and as the Annie and Zach Stanton distinguished professor of canine welfare law at the University of Georgia.

I assisted the DeCad County Attorney's Office on the original draft of this ordinance.

Um, at this point, I am the director of animal welfare for the state of Vermont.

So I work in public safety, and I have a lot of interest in this topic uh because of its relationship, not only to animal welfare, but to public safety.

And one thing I wanted to bring up that was not really focused on is that Peggy spoke about the fight or flight instinct that develops in dogs when they're tethered out because they can't get away from anybody coming at them.

Other animals, children, people they don't know, a lot of them develop a very strong bite mechanism.

And in fact, tethering dogs is one of the primary ways that dog fighting dogs are trained.

They're tethered in close proximity to other animals where they can't quite get at them, but where their territoriality is going to be enhanced and it's going to make them more aggressive with those animals.

And part of the problem, it's not only a problem when those dogs are tethered, if you think about dog fighting dogs, but any dog that's tethered out and develops that very strong fight reaction to anyone coming at them, even once they're off the tether, they have an ongoing aggression that they have now honed.

And so tethering is a dog that is tethered is more apt to get loose than one that is inside a confinement area like a pen or a house or one that's behind a fence.

If you look at the data on dogs that run at large, for the ones that escape from something, it's more likely to be a tether than something else.

So these dogs that have honed their aggression on the tether, get loose, and now they're running at large in your community, and they have learned that their initial reaction to anybody coming at them is to fight.

And so while tethering can seem like a really innocuous way to confine a dog that doesn't cost a whole lot of money, there are high costs for the community.

The other way there are high costs is that DeCab has really been working on combating pet overproduction.

You've been funding spay neuter events, you've been funding spay neuter trainings and putting a lot of time and money into that.

And tethered dogs are almost universally intact.

They have not been spayed or neutered.

They're dogs that are not really part of their family, and an intact female dog that is tethered out is a pregnant dog.

And so tethering these dogs also increases this breeding that leads to your um shelter overcrowding.

Then finally, I worked with Floyd County and Walton County both when they passed their tethering ordinances that are very similar to this.

And I worked closely with Athens Clark County for years in the after they passed their tethering ordinance, and I worked with Barrow County after they passed theirs.

And in each case, none of those areas had a flood of animals coming into the shelter.

There was no negative effect to passing this ordinance.

Instead, families figured out ways to provide appropriate confinement for their animals, even once this uh anti-tethering ordinance was passed.

And so it's not something that's going to result in a flood of animals coming into the shelter based on the experience in the other Georgia counties.

Happy to answer any questions you might have, but um thank you for considering us.

Thank you so much, Professor Milet, and I am forever grateful for all of the support you have given to me, my team, the Redshirts, and DeCab County, as well as the state of Georgia.

We miss you, but glad you're happy in Vermont.

Um, to wrap up, commissioners, um, what I'm really asking of you all to support is the is basically to comply with what the warning label is on dog tethers.

The warning label is very clear.

Always supervise or tethered dog, do not leave it unattended.

That is the core of this amendment.

Not every dog can be safely tethered.

Um Professor Milet and Peggy and Snelly spoke to this as well.

Dogs with known aggression must never be left on tie outs, trolleys, or chains.

All three of those are tethering devices.

And again, Professor Milet talked about what happens with a dog that is tethered long term and that they get off the tether, that aggression continues.

So thank you again so much for hearing this.

Um certainly to you, Chair Bolton, for giving this substantial time during the ERPS committee, and I yield back.

Thank you, ma'am.

And before we get into questions and comments from committee members and commissioners, I do want to say thank you to Professor Milet for joining us from so far away, Commissioner Long Spears for bringing this to our attention and being patient.

I know we were trying to have this discussion a couple weeks back, but also to our advisory board members who have joined us and our red shirts, who I know you guys were here the last meeting.

We didn't get an opportunity because one of the other discussions went uh a bit longer than anticipated.

And thank you for your patience as well as we try to get through as much of our agenda as possible.

So at this time, Commissioner Davis Johnson does have a couple comments and questions.

Uh thank you all for that uh presentation.

Um Director Fulham.

Is he here?

Oh, yeah, I see you.

Okay.

You've had a chance to review uh this ordinance.

Yes, ma'am, I have and your thoughts on it.

There's no concern that I have uh seen in the document as far as being able to enforce it.

Uh as was stated, uh, there may be some ease in actually enforcing this uh ordinance uh with the elimination of the time, the time window uh that's currently in the ordinance that says I believe it's 12 hours is how long an animal can be left in a tethered situation without um having uh somebody watching them uh as was stated during a presentations would require the officers to come back and in order to determine that that time has been exceeded.

So I do have uh director Wallen here as well who can speak to it uh maybe a little bit more directly, but uh from my standpoint I didn't see anything that would uh cause any uh burden for the officers to enforce it.

Oh, okay, and I can say because I have another okay, go on, but I have another question.

Okay, no, I was just gonna piggyback on what um Director Fulham was saying that when we go out, sometimes as mentioned in the pictures, if we see evidence of even though it had the 12-hour, obviously they've been out there too long, so you know we would act on it, but this just kind of narrows it down to help take that kind of out of the way.

Oh okay.

So I would assume that the department would be the one to determine the hours that a dog is being tethered.

So for is that well, the the amended um the amended ordinance that we're discussing now is stating that um there is no unattended tethering, no matter what the hour is.

So who is to determine that?

I mean animal enforcement would be responsible for the monitoring enforcement, and if they come across a dog as the director said, you know, trying to troubleshoot and do what's best for the animal.

If she sees ev like you just stated, obviously I know you you do that, and I'm very glad to hear that um from your lips.

Um but yes, if they see the evidence of you know the collar worn into the skin of the dog, then they can act on that immediately.

Okay.

So just talk to us, and I mean you know what you can and cannot do.

So I'll let you know.

And I and I want to know the realistic um result of what this ordinance is saying, and also it's an amended ordinance.

So what is it amending?

What is it adding that is not all we just got it?

So it's hard to read and listen.

Okay.

And so if you could tell me what is amending, so technically, if if a dog is tethered, they have to be attended.

So if someone is if the dog is in the backyard but they're inside watching TV or whatever the situation is, if they're not right there in direct control of the dog, then they're unattended.

So we also look at though whether they have water, shelter, you know, food, um, I'm sorry, what you're describing is that what's currently in the ordinance or what we currently do.

Um, in terms of what the differences are, they're just making it just more detailed, is really what the ordinance is doing.

Takes the time away, so we don't have to say, well, have they been out here for 12 hours or not?

You know, they can't kind of find use that as a loophole, but we definitely go out and determine depends on the situation.

You know, we have elderly people that can't walk their dog, so they might put it on a leash to let it run and you know go to the bathroom.

And if it's a temporary, you know, depending on what the situation is, but tethering has always been something that we cite people for and so how a dogs contained within their homes, so that they do not present a danger to the public at large, then not tattered.

But inside the is there a fence?

I mean, if a dog is outside, right?

I mean, because you're not saying that a dog can't be outside, you just said that a dog can't be tethered.

Correct.

They just you have to be in direct control.

So if a child is walking, and I'm sure that there's already something in place for a owner to be responsible for the safety of those that are walking uh past their premises, just talk to me about that.

Correct.

So if I if there's an animal in the front yard, as long as you can call spot coming here and spot comes to you, it doesn't have to be tethered, it doesn't have to have a fence.

You just have to have some type of control of the animal to make sure that they come back to you and not go after the person or other animal off of property.

So there is a citation for um control of the animal on property, off property.

So if I'm in a park and I don't control the animal, there's a citation for that.

If someone runs onto my property and gets bitten, depending on that situation, if the person thought I was in danger or the animal thought I was in danger and the person gets bitten, then it's a little different.

But running off of property, yes, there is already a citation for that.

Okay, okay.

And uh let me see.

And and you presented a good point.

Can you share the red line version with the committee members and commissioners so that we can see what those differences are?

Sure, we can absolutely do that.

Um fencing, is that that's not a part of tethering, fencing, keeping them within a fencing.

Um that's a good question.

I'm focused on the um transportation piece of it, the tethering piece of it, the enclosure piece of it.

Um there is on page two where we're talking proper enclosure for dog or dogs at my open space.

All right, with a body rate.

Ms.

McCarthy, I don't see anything related to fencing in here.

Is that correct?

It's it's uh it's enclosure space requirements.

It's uh square footage.

I'm sorry.

So she's dating.

Yeah.

I believe she's stating just directly.

Commissioner, it is the square footage that is what she's saying in the back.

Bottom of page.

Based on the size of the dog, there's a set amount of square footage that's required.

Oh, okay.

But it doesn't actually say the word fencing, I don't believe.

So that is it's at the bottom of page two, Commissioner.

And enclosure can be a fence or it can be a kennel.

Okay, so enclosure is just fraud and the bottom.

Uh big difference between the proposed amendments and what's in the existing ordinance um up there, uh, the first bullet.

This or this proposed ordinance adds a definition of attended um very specifically, and that allows for effective enforcement of this.

And it also revises the definition of tethering and and eliminates that time that time element, which timed enforcement.

I don't know anywhere where that's enforced effectively because it's a heavy burden on animal control.

Um then it adds that new section on restraint of animals in open-air vehicles.

Um, I don't recall seeing uh voice control in the ordinance for dogs off tether.

Okay.

No, ma'am, I don't okay.

I don't believe that is here.

Miss Milet.

Miss Smilard, are you still there?

The question related to voice control.

I don't believe it's in the amended ordinance.

Honestly, I don't recall.

Okay.

I can look back at it at the at the current one and what's being replaced.

Um, if you want to continue covering other things, I can look at that in the background.

In general, as long as the dog is under control.

Right.

I don't know animal control uh officers who generally it it's a if the dog is actually under control.

My experience is many times somebody would, even if they're technically it's supposed to be on a leash, if it is under voice control, though the it's more out that somebody would get a warning or just have the law explain to them that there will be a an actual problem.

Thank you, Miss Milot.

Um Commissioner Bolton and Commissioner Davis Johnson.

What um I would like to suggest is um we add a few definitions to the ordinance.

One of those is around what enclosure means, so that we're all specific on that.

Uh voice control.

Um you think director, that we needed to do you but feel that we need to add that to the ordinance is some language around that voice control.

I mean, direct control, it can be anything.

Some people have the electric harnesses, voice control, whatever it is to keep your dog in control and not run off of the property.

So feel it necessary.

Confer with the county attorney.

Once they run off the property, we can cite them for owner not controlling their animal.

So what are you sure?

If I if I can jump in current law, which is not overridden by this ordinance, is exactly what was just said.

It says it shall be the duty of every owner of an animal to ensure that the animal is kept under restraint and that the prop precautions are taken to prevent the animal from leaving while unattended the real property limits of its owner.

So that allows for voice control.

It means as long as the animal is on the property and doesn't leave the property lines.

Okay.

It's considered under control.

So it doesn't need to be on leash, it doesn't need to be on a tether, it doesn't need to be behind a fence if it's in fact on the property and under control.

So Commissioner Longspears maybe a reference to that absolutely, or restate it.

Um what I would uh propose is to defer this item for two weeks, bring it back with the red line and any additions to it, because we're just seeing this.

And so I'd like to read it.

I'd like to see the difference and uh appreciate uh what everyone is saying it does give me something to start by, but I would just like to defer it for two weeks so that we could get a red a read.

But I'm in a grants with the um I mean I'm gonna agree on uh pretty much the context, the content that is in it.

I just want to make sure that um along with the dogs that people are protected as well.

And so I just like to uh defer it for two weeks and bring it back.

And before I make my comments, Commissioner Patrick or Commissioner Terry, did you have Commissioner Patrick?

Uh no, just generally supportive of the efforts that uh Commissioner Spears and and uh our red shirts have uh put forward to date.

Thank you.

Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh yes, I am in support of the proposed amendments and certainly would welcome any uh clarification on the enclosure portion.

And then I did want to ask um uh on section four a references um uh the shall not apply inside a running vehicle as is as provided in subsection six.

So is there already something in the ordinance about an unattended dog in an unattended vehicle versus an unattended vehicle that's running and has the AC on and the one what is the um I don't know if this is uh the appropriate section.

I was just curious that kind of nuance of in a vehicle, a dog has the window down and a water bowl in it and it's just in a parking lot um for an hour and it's not hot, right?

Like just how how y'all handle that and whether that's related to any of that.

That's neglect.

That's not a tethering or not tethering that's just a separate animal in a car.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's what the animal altogether.

That's isn't that state as well?

A state law?

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Around leaving an animal in a car though, unattended and certain degree temperatures.

It's I don't recall.

Yeah, I mean it's the outcome of the.

Okay, I mean the state ladies telling us yes.

So state lady.

We do have a state law that allows it um provides immunity for law enforcement to break into a car where a dog is uh well, a dog any animal or child for that matter is in a vehicle uh and it's in their opinion that it's imminent harm because of temperature.

And and so it's not a question of being unattended, it's a question of um they're in a locked vehicle and the temperature is um too high.

Okay, and it pr provides them with the the law enforcement with um immunity from breaking windows, breaking the door.

Okay, great.

Thank you for explaining that.

Was that Commissioner Terry?

That was it.

Um so some of these, and I'm assuming what we're looking at are only the updates.

Is that right?

Okay.

Yes, some of this I think was um very necessary, the definitions under part one in enactment where you discuss what attended is, um, capable, a capable human, immediate physical presence, those sorts of things.

Um the addition of enclosure, I like that we're gonna add that now, as well as some of the other items under D1, where it talks about such tethering is on a temporary basis to the device by which the animal should be tet tethered.

Um it talks about fitting what the collar should look like.

I'm I am concerned though about unintended consequences.

I know we um you just kind of mentioned how um essentially we don't want any tethering at all, but what I think about is our and it came up earlier our low-income uh community members, but especially our unhoused.

So once we get our day center, if we have some of our unhoused community that decides they want to go get support, they tether their animal outside maybe for an hour while whether they're getting help with resumes, they're charging their phones, they're getting food, anything like that, and a passerby walks by and says, Hey, this is an unintended tethered animal, they call animal control, and now this unhoused person has lost their only companion.

And many of them won't even take shelter if the shelter doesn't allow their companion.

And what I don't want to do is make life even more difficult for a very vulnerable population through this ordinance.

So I like us to reconsider some alternative language so that we are supporting our community members as well, and not just considering the impact on the animals.

So we there's a balancing act that I need think we need to consider moving forward.

Your comment is noted, ma'am.

And so what I'll do is get back with the little planning group that we have and bring your suggestion and see what we can do to weave that in.

And then the other thing with the low income community members, or not even low income, just anyone that might have difficulty being able to afford the enclosure based on the 30 pounds, 100 square feet per dog, more than 30 pounds, a minimum of 200 square feet per animal.

We're essentially putting them in a position where they may not be able to have an animal if they can't afford an enclosure that meets these minimum requirements.

So if we could just take some time to consider maybe some alternative options or language, anything like that, so that we're not excluding someone based on the fact that they either don't have a home or they don't have the AML AMI required to have a pet.

Okay.

Um but those were the two immediate things that came to mind for me, and I think a deferral is appropriate so that we could address these.

So with that, and we have three minutes left in the meeting.

Uh-oh.

And uh I'd like to um say those were very goods.

And um, and and of course, once the um amended amendments or amended, uh, if you could also pass them by uh director Fulham.

Sure.

Animal control and oh, okay, animal control and uh legal.

So that when it comes back before us, uh all three have had an opportunity to look at them.

Yeah.

I didn't want to interrupt Commissioner Spears.

She asked me to give her a minute.

So you're gonna interview me.

Legal legal has approved the form that's in front of you.

Okay, we have reviewed the 518 version and approved it.

And just I won't go too far, but there's a definition in section 5-1 of the existing code for proper enclosure.

Well, there they're we're talking about modifications.

I understand.

And we'll look at those when they come as well.

I've I just wanted to make the point we've we've been involved.

And we've approved the form that's in front of you.

And we'll gladly look at all the changes that Commissioner Screws and her team's proposal.

Because if we want to pass it, we want to make sure it's vetted by everyone and have their comments.

So with that, um, I would like to make a motion to defer for two weeks.

Second, all in favor.

Uh and and we could have the red line version.

Uh we'll have the red line version as well.

Yes, we will shoot for Friday to get that um to I guess all the commissioners.

Did you have a oh, you wanted as well?

Is that what your hand was up?

I would like when I want to talk.

Yeah, all of the commissioners.

Okay, all of the commissioners and um because they may want to come to the meeting.

You bet we have uh kept director Foleman, probably more than he would like.

And all things animals recently, so thank you so much.

He really hit the ground running with animal services when he was appointed in this role.

And on behalf of the red shirts, we really animal advisory, all of our furry friend lovers, we do appreciate you and all the work that you've done to learn more about animal services, animal well-being, and how we can uh look at innovative legislative solutions to fix some of the problems.

And if I can very quickly, uh I did do a ride along with with animal enforcement, and one of the uh first items that we dealt with was I believe it is Officer Sierra, who we responded to a dog running around the neighborhood, but she saw a animal that was tethered, and we ended up taking this animal, but the animal was uh being tethered to a tree that had also become entangled in some lawn furniture.

And so she went to the house and uh there was nobody there.

We ended up taking the animal, she left uh a warning there, so this is a situation that they deal with daily.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Patrick, you had something.

Uh yes, madam chair.

Uh, just reminder we didn't have a chance to talk about the tires or illegal tire dumping, but we do have that ordinance ready to go.

And commissioners, if y'all are at that point of comfort, Madam Chair, next time we have a chance to discuss it.

I'm looking forward to hopefully getting this to the full Board of Commissioners for approval.

I also invite our redshirts to come on out.

Uh no one wants a pile of tires in their backyard where their dog can't run around safely.

Um and so I encourage y'all to come out and support uh this item as well.

And thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, sir.

Um, Mr.

Allen, can we prioritize that conversation?

Because we were supposed to get to that today as well.

Okay.

Did you have anything urgent that we need to address before we adjourn?

A couple things, madam chair.

The one item I think we have is a death benefit uh modification that we want to present.

Additionally, we are prepared to discuss a change in the pension program for firefighters and police officers.

That's an item that we'll be bringing before you next go around, but I just wanted to maybe give you a brief introduction.

Uh this is something that we promised that we would get back to you in June.

And uh so we're just looking to present that.

But if we can take the the first one, which is the death benefit fit for employees, believe that's the same.

What's that item number?

It's uh the very first item 0941.

Yeah, I think it's the very first item.

Oh, on page three, the first item on page three, zero nine four one.

Yes.

So if it's the will of the chair, we can give you a brief overview of that.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair, and uh we will rebrief.

This item is uh one that is very sensitive and critical to uh law enforcement.

Um as you recall, uh, we had the uh very unfortunate events last year losing two individuals in public safety, and out of that tragic circumstance, uh the pension board actually uh presented to this committee several months ago and asked the committee to consider uh enacting a death benefit.

Um, and this is what we're presenting today.

Uh the first reading of this pension death benefit will be on June the 9th, with a second and final adoption of this homework ordinance on June 28th.

But in brief, the death benefit would give any employee that dies or is kill or is killed in the line of duty, not just public safety, but any employee that dies in the line of duty would receive an immediate payout of their pension benefit as if they had worked a full career of 30 years.

They do not have to be vested, they could have worked for one month, and if they are killed on the job after one month, and if they are participating in the county's pension plan, which the vast majority of us are, they their beneficiary would receive the equivalent of a 30-year uh payout if they have a pension beneficiary.

That beneficiary would receive uh um a lifetime benefit equal to the value of that uh individual's pension benefit with 30 years of service.

If there is no named pension beneficiary, it's rare, but it does happen.

The uh payment would be made to the estate of the deceased individual, and uh generally uh a court would assign an administrator to that estate, but we would be obligated to pay out that 30-year benefit to uh the estate if the deceased employee does not have a named pension beneficiary.

Uh the cost of this plan is terribly cheap.

Uh, it's less than $50,000, and that's compared to $82 million that we contribute to the pension plan every year.

So that the cost, and I'll I'll use a fancy actuarial word is de minimis, and uh we would be able to uh do that, I believe, with existing funds.

It would not be a budget request.

We already have that uh built into the budget.

And so we'd be asking again on June 9th for you to hear this as an initial reading with final approval and adoption for this home rule ordinance on June 23rd, and this benefit would go into effect on September 1, 2026.

Uh I should add that uh this benefit cannot be retroactive.

It has to be June uh September 1 forward.

But what we approved previously is that retroact ooh, retroactive for 2025.

Yeah.

I I believe that was an enabling action when Mr.

Wall presented, it was a general discussion, but what we're presenting now is the actual home rule ordinance.

Okay, I guess essentially what I'm asking is will the families that experience the uh we did ask that question, Commissioner, and and unfortunately, and apparently there are some gratuities clause uh concerns that does not allow this benefit to be retroactive to the uh two officers that were lost last year.

Okay.

So what we approved in the budget that happened before the proposition of this home rule ordinance does not apply to the families we had in mind at the time that we had the discussion in and approved the budget earlier this year.

Yes, so that budget which captured the county's portion of the pension contribution, 82 million dollars, um, did not include uh the two losses of those or this enhanced benefit, which is what we would call this an enhanced benefit.

Um I think we need to roll the tape back because I specifically asked that question.

Would it include the death benefit?

And the response was yes, the death benefit for the families.

Yeah.

That's a different thing.

Yeah.

She's talking about two different things.

Yes, and and if we're talking about the death benefit commissioner, um I I don't recall that conversation.

Mr.

Wall led that presentation.

Um, but uh it does not apply which retroactive.

Right.

So what this is is changing to allow for a person to receive the full retirement, right?

Death benefit is something that was approved.

I want to say probably your first, not last budget, but in 25.

And I believe that is something different that does apply that provides for the life insurance benefit, not the full retirement that we're seeking to do here.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm calling it by the wrong name.

But what I'm talking about is the life insurance benefit.

No, I'm talking about this.

What we're doing.

Full retirement.

Yeah, the full retirement for someone who's killed in the line of duty.

So forgive me for calling it a death benefit, even though we're talking about someone who's died.

Right.

But yeah, that that was a question that we as a as the ERPS committee asked when it was initially presented, and each time that it came up in committee, I always asked to make sure that it would include the two families that were impacted last year, and every time the response was always yes, and nobody ever corrected that yes.

If I could say something, I don't think that that was dealing with retirement.

Right.

Right.

I think that this is the first that they're bringing the retirement.

We dealt with no, then no.

Well, we'll go back to check.

Yeah, then go back and check what we have.

Because there's clearly unless you misunderstood what I was asking.

I've always understood it to be it didn't matter if you served one month or 100 years, you would receive your retirement if you were killed in the line of duty based on what we were trying to uh implement at the time we were having the discussions.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Well I am so disappointed.

I'm sorry.

Do you anybody else have a comment so I can have some time?

I you know, I mean, I mean there's clearly Yeah.

No.

I think we could talk with them offline, pull the transcript and see what you said.

But this is the first that I'm saying that you're talking about the retirement benefit being um the death benefit.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I know that we talked about death benefit, but this is the first time retirement.

Right.

And if you're gonna be retroactive on that, which is against the law, then why can't you go back to 1920?

You know.

Okay, and we'll we'll go back and double check to see where the disconnection is.

Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I I do share the uh the disappointment of Madam Chair, and I think um, you know, I do applaud her for uh you know pushing these initiatives um through the ERPS committee the last year and a half, and so I think you know, with this proposed ordinance, um it's it is very proactive.

Um we're not including all employees because I believe in the past there may have been like a watershed employee or maybe a public works person that I don't know if they in the past maybe so anyways it's not all employees could have different situations than law enforcement.

So I think that's very forward thinking.

Um so um certainly support the ordinance and maybe just as a reminder from the the life insurance.

I think that think that was the other vote we were talking about.

Maybe just give us the reminder of how much that was valued at 2,000.

So the board has adopted that, and that does happen.

Okay, and that was all employees significant as well.

So I know we were trying to do is the maximal that we could to um recognize the two that um that lost their lives last year.

Um but understand that the that darn gratuities clause, Mr.

Jacobs um has those rules.

So hopefully we can get this approved and um we'll have it set moving forward.

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, and after this discussion, there's another exciting piece of information we'd like to share relative to pensions.

Well, whenever you dispose of this item, we're ready to talk about it.

Before you make the motion, so this is why probably why I call it the death benefit.

I'm getting ready to read this to y'all.

Home rule ordinance to amend the pension code of DeCab County, Georgia 1962, GA Laws 3088, as amended to add a death benefit for beneficiaries of certain plan participants.

So every time I said death benefit, this is what I was talking about.

So I I don't know why y'all trying to make me feel confused about a death benefit in the pension plan when you use the same language.

But go ahead.

Don't go to the case.

Oh my I say I say my office is trying to make me confused all the time.

And you know, so what they had to do is show me all the door.

What they had to do is show me why I feel confused.

And once they put it in front of me, then I say, okay, okay, maybe I misunderstood it.

You know, so please sure.

So um it doesn't make sense.

Alan, can you help me identify the dates that Ed Wall came so I can show them every time I ask that question?

Okay.

Well, this is recorded, so you can always go back.

Yeah.

So okay.

So with that, um, I make a motion that this item be approved.

Second.

I can't even give y'all kudos.

I got an attitude all in favor.

Uh right, right.

But but the employees, the 6500 employees that that will infect and future employees definitely appreciate that.

So I don't want to lose sight of that.

The next item, if I may, madam chair.

Go ahead.

Yes.

So we'd like to have a discussion uh regarding items that are coming your way, and that is looking to move those police officers and firefighters who are currently receiving tier three retirement benefits to the tier two retirement benefits.

That's something that we promised to get back to you in June.

Um it is June.

And so this is a really big move, and we believe as it relates to retention of our officers, both our sworn firefighters and police officers.

So we want to just touch on it.

We'll be bringing the actual agenda item the next cycle, but we just wanted to give you a heads up that this is what's coming and react to any of your thoughts at this time.

Clicker.

Can I make a motion to was somebody getting ready to talk through it?

Yeah, yes, I'm just looking for the clicker.

Okay.

So we'll go through this briefly.

You have your uh hard copies in front of you.

And thanks, thanks.

And uh we have Mr.

Malachi Waterman with me too from Siegel, our actuarial consulting firm, long-time pension consultant.

Our target audience that Mr.

Williams was referring to does refer just to public safety.

This enhanced pension benefit, and we're talking strictly about a pension benefit now, is uh only for sworn police and certified firefighters, but those that were hired after January 1, 2026.

That's in I'm sorry, 2016.

I'm not reading what's right in front of me.

After January 1, 2016.

That means individuals that are in the group three pension plan.

All right.

We're trying to make sure that uh public safety employees are secure in their retirement.

This proposal will guarantee financial peace for the sworn officers and honors uh their service uh that is unique to people in public safety.

They have a dangerous job, and it uh offers lifelong financial stability uh for those that are working in the public safety space.

It also is really targeted for recruitment and retention.

There are a lot of pressures that public safety decab uh notwithstanding faces when it comes to recruiting police and fire.

We believe that this enhanced pension benefit would make us a more attractive offering compared to other jurisdictions in this area.

Not only are we enhancing or proposing to enhance the group three pension plan for public safety, we are already covering the cost of the police officer annuity benefit, which is a supplemental pension plan, and very soon will be covering the firefighters supplemental annuity plan as well by paying their their dues directly to those two plan sponsors.

So this combined with enhancing our own decab sponsored pension plan, we do think will make us uh a strong consideration for folks considering the public safety work.

Our ultimate outcome is to ensure a long-term stable workforce in public safety.

All right.

So what we're looking at now is uh how would we accomplish this?

We would uh propose increasing the multiplier for our group three participants, sworn officers and certified firefighters from group uh from one percent multiplier to two and a quarter affected January 1, 2027.

We are also proposing, and this is something near and dear to public safety, lowering the normal retirement age from age 67 to age 62.

Uh we hear uh uh director Fulham when he says uh older officers have a tough time uh chasing down uh young suspects, and the same uh when it comes to uh firefighters, and uh I'm I'm with them.

I'm in close to one of these age groups, and so uh lowering the retirement age by five years, we do think is going to increase morale for public safety employees, both uh police and fire, and also we would be ceasing the contribution to the uh 401A plan.

Currently, the county contributes six percent of police and fire pay to a nationwide 401A account, and the effective date of this transition again would be January 1, 2027.

How this transition would work, uh we would individuals that are currently in the group three pension plan, as we know it's a little thinner plan than the other two, continue to uh accrue their benefits under that current plan provision.

Um but on January 1, Group 2 pension service accruals will officially begin.

In other words, if you have 10 years of service under the current plan, you were hired January 1, 2026.

Effective January 1, 2020, I keep saying 2026, you're hired January 1, 2016, and by now you have about 10 years of service in that thinner plan.

January 1 of next year, you would start accruing pension service in what we're proposing as a richer plan or group two with the two and a quarter pension benefit.

And then the final calculation for their retirement benefit when they do retire would uh be a combination of both of those uh benefits, the group three plan as well as the group two plan.

Okay.

Uh asset retention under this proposal, the contributions that the county has placed in that 401A plan, and we think about it.

If you're making $50,000 a year and you're a police officer, and we've put 3% of pay in that plan for the last several years, that's a significant amount.

They get to keep that money.

Um we're not taking that from them.

They get to keep that money, and they could potentially use that money to buy service under the richer plan uh at the two and a quarter percent.

Uh note that the buy-in option is still uh undergoing legal review, and what that means uh to our uh firefighters and policemen.

If it's permissible for them to buy their group three service, they would have to pay the difference between what uh group two participants pay, that's the richer plant, they're paying about eight and a half percent.

Current folks are paying six and a half percent.

So there's a two percent delta.

They would have to make up that difference uh on a voluntary basis, we believe right now, if they want to buy into the richer plan for their first uh 10 years of service under the thinner group three uh plan.

Okay.

And in conclusion, uh, if approved, uh it gives an immediate win because it boosts uh recruiter leverage and lifts department morale.

Uh long-term win is that it improves the retirement benefit for police and fire while simultaneously lowering their normal retirement age.

The cost impact for the county is about 2.1 million dollars per year.

That's a net cost because we're paying about $4 million or $2 million for uh contributions to the 401A plan, but when we turn that off, our net cost becomes $2.1 million per year for this enhanced benefit.

But when we turn that off, our net cost becomes $2.1 million per year for this enhanced benefit.

And last but not least, uh this is just sort of an enabling uh uh item uh but uh this will require a home rule amendment as well.

So looking at these numbers in our last discussion, it was communicated that to uh transition folks in phases would be an administrative headache, and so it was suggested because we we proposed doing it in phases before, but the team came back and said it would be better to just transition everyone, and one of the benefits of going ahead and doing that was it would only cost us four million dollars, just double what the cost impact is here to do everyone versus just a niche group.

So why not stick with what was discussed before transitioning everyone for four million dollars?

Yeah.

I I think that improved.

Or was it eight million?

Uh it so that was it was about ten million, and I think for context, we maybe referring to when we said it would be easier, we were meaning everybody moving all employees over to group two.

Um administratively that would be easier.

Uh but of course the budgetary impact is considerably more than the 2.1 we're proposing.

It would have been about 10 million dollars net cost to bring everybody over.

About eight million.

Uh we're looking at this uh for police and fire for now, and perhaps another conversation uh for the broader uh number of employees later so was it the cost you're saying the eight million versus two million for public safety versus everyone was the deciding factor for what was proposed to cost.

Okay.

Well, I would say um what we should also consider is that there was a request for a millage rate increase.

And earlier this year when we were discussing the budget, we we talked about a 155 million dollar housing strategy versus $8 million a year to improve budget for our $6500 uh improved pension for our $6500 employees or or whatever number within that $6,500.

I think we have all the pieces of the puzzle, we just need to construct it in a way that's reasonable because we the funds could potentially be there if that increase is voted upon.

Was that a consideration?

Right.

So Madam Chair, what we've looked at when coming up with this was the fiscal impact and the millage rate increase in those items that essentially would be purchased with the military increase have already been accounted for.

So, you know, to come up with an additional eight million, eight to ten million, we're just gonna use rough numbers because I'm not looking at the data, would require either an increase in a greater increase in millage or a decrease someplace.

So this was in part a financial decision, but it was also in part a recruitment and retention discussion.

Because many of the things that we have done for our police officers and firefighters that we have not done for the rest of the employees is because of our difficulty recruiting and retaining police officers and firefighters.

That's not to say that we are done with the conversation, but where we are now, we felt that we could, you know, we could manage the two million dollar rough increase and ensure that we're you know more competitive in the marketplace uh without uh having to do a greater increase in the military.

Okay.

So just for clarity, the millage rate increase will only cover what our current expenses are, not the additional projects that the administration wanted included.

They will cover they will cover the projects that we presented in the budget, which include um items that the administration brought forward in the form of the housing strategy, um items that board members, everything that was approved in the budget will be covered with the military increase.

Gotcha.

So even though we talked about this last year, we didn't consider it in the budget for this year, but we did consider some other projects.

Right.

So yeah, so our recollection of the conversation was that I think it was in February or you know, well into the budget development timeline or discussions that we were going to come back in June and we were gonna start with public safety, uh which is what we have done.

Well, not we didn't say that at that time.

Yeah, well, that you know, we we've been saying that consistently, uh, Commissioner.

Remember, we were just talking about me and Larry Jacobs that originally after we said we we should phase it in, their team said we should look into how to transition everybody at one time.

So the last conversation didn't include not to us, not to the ERPS committee.

It didn't include just transitioning public safety.

This this is the first time that we're hearing this.

Mr.

Allen prepped me for it.

I knew it was coming, but the the committee didn't have a conversation about that.

Unless I'm mistaken, I know you be checking me.

Right.

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Davis.

Yeah.

As as as I recall, we did speak of public safety because it was a high and retention issue.

And how would we set us apart from other jurisdictions?

And then I think that fire and um police, they're at a greater risk than the rest of us.

I mean, they go into danger.

I would think we would walk away from danger.

And so, uh, and I say we use my tear, but you know we walk away from danger.

And so um, you know, so the families, I mean, you have to give them an incentive, and that's what people want to make sure that they have public safety and fire.

Right, right.

And yeah, I mean, they want to be a sure, those are the top priorities of um constituents.

Public safety, they want to feel safe.

If the house is on fire, whatever is needed by the fire, that's the top priority.

We sit up here, you know, uh as only so much money a county has.

Um, and so when I say we sit up here, I mean just like staff, they sit in their comfortable offices.

You know, and here's what I won't say that I mean I you know, then we'll be talking about changing office factors.

Yes, but uh we're you know, but I understand, I understand what Commissioner Bolton is saying that you would like to see it.

I'd like to see everybody.

And and and we would we were not done looking and that's what they said.

I didn't say that I remember transitioning in groups, and they came back and said, Yeah, but I remember we focusing on fire and um and fire and police as the top priority because you know you give them an incentive, but we can afford, but it it's a recruitment and retention strategy.

Um we we recognize that being competitive in the marketplace may also mean for other lines of business that we're in that we need to make that transition.

But where we are today, you know, we we think this is you know an outstanding thing because not many organizations are transitioning back to defined contra or defined benefit programs, and for us to be able to do it for sworn police and fire is uh kind of a special thing.

Okay, Commissioner Terry.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um so I I do remember um Commissioner Bolton's uh recollection of the discussion because I believe it the goal was to look at um all group three participants being able to get the group two benefits.

Um I hear today that you're proposing that we just start with police and fire.

Uh but you're exactly right, Commissioner Bolton, that the committee's discussions were around um all of group three.

So um uh it one uh way forward to uh to maybe just chart out that path would be when y'all bring back the agenda item that if the committee and ultimately the commissioners, you know, in any potential approval of of this change that we also asked for you to bring back the next stage and and and and and just you know don't let it hang out there like we want to acknowledge that police and fire are first.

Um I actually thought we were including 911 uh in this initial, but y'all are coming back with police and fire, so it it I think it would be a morale booster for every other employee to know that we are gonna work on that next, and preferably it would if if that's you know accepted by the commissioners and the administration, we could do it the following year.

Right, right.

Commissioner Patrick.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm gonna basically echo what Commissioner Terry said.

uh in this initial but y'all are coming back with police and fire so it it I think it would be a morale booster for every other employee to know that we are we're gonna work on that next and preferably it would if if that's you know accepted by the commissioners and the administration we could do it the following year commissioner Patrick uh thank you madam chair I'm gonna basically echo what commissioner Terry said um I know that in the time that we've been here there's always been a conversation around uh first responders as well as all staff um as someone who is not a first responder but still came to work every day you know we uh planners do a good job where you all are important and so is procurement uh and everyone else that's in the background that makes this operation work and y'all are valuable um sometimes we have to take it one step at a time um for if you remember uh Johnny Cash one piece at a time I'm gonna build myself a Cadillac um yeah you know before my time Commissioner I come on now with with with gray hair like that sir no way no way but um you know we'll we'll get there uh um uh the fact that the administration is coming forward with this is uh I think it is something that's is commendable um I do want to see the rest of the staff brought up into the fold as well uh because I know you know again speaking for planners um they're in high demand as well and uh if you've been in a community working for several years uh you know the codes you know the policies and you remember the conversations from back in the day that got us to the ordinance we have today which is very valuable in of itself so I do um support this encourage this I'll support it at the BOC when it comes up but I do want to recommend please come back to us with uh with the rest of the team we can look at if there can be any changes in 27 I don't know understood thank you thank you madam chair commissioner Davis Johnson you had something oh no I'm just yeah I I just want to say that I you know I agree with what everybody is is is saying up here and and and one of the things that um I did not think about we have been talking about this for years you know so uh it's not something that's just coming for we've been talking about setting aside or because retention hiring and retention has been a big problem for the CAB and uh it seemed like we're just about there now well we've almost hired the number of slots that we have and now we want to retain them you know and I think this is a step forward.

But I do say that um I'd like to see it expanded to everyone because I think everyone uh deserve it the CAP is doing a good job and that means everyone in the department's doing a good job and they should have better offices in that right uh yeah should have better offices but yeah I I support it I support it as well.

And can you restate the timeline you mentioned the first read and then the vote yes the first read will be June the ninth and then the second and final job adoption on June the 28th.

This is for the death benefit and we're bringing back the other one so and we'll be bringing back for the uh uh enhanced pension benefit for police and fire uh I think we would be ready to move forward with that um uh let me be conservative let me say September okay all right well if there is nothing else I just want to remind everyone watching that we do have a committee of the whole meeting this evening at Lou Walker 5 30 so please log in watch on DC TV online or come in person and with that do we have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Second all in favor aye