Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning. Call the meeting to order. This is the first regular meeting, actually the only meeting of the Board of Commissioners in July. Today's July 15th, it's 10.01 AM. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. All right, please rise for the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Does this have an echo? No? It sounds like it, all right. Continue, Madam Clerk.

All right, anything on the consent agenda? Nothing, commissions, no? All right, entertain a motion. Motion to approve by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. Please vote.

All right, motion to adopt by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman.

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

All right, if I could have everybody from the parole office, or the probation office rather, from the juvenile court come down please to join us. I do want to say that our, before we get started on the proclamation, that our juvenile court does such great work for the community. They're so caring. I've never had any interaction with anybody in the juvenile court administration that isn't just really genuinely concerned about children and families and doing Their work with that in mind, so I'm very pleased and proud to have you all here today it is my honor to bring this proclamation and I know

Mr. Gilbert Young and all of the individuals supporting Mr. Young, who is a Fulton County resident, would like you to come forward. Come on, please, sir. You can come stand next to me, sir. All right. Oh, let's get that. Let's get that. I know you will. And Dave, okay, I want to make sure you are always, thank you, Dave. Gilbert Young, what can I say? I'm going to get into this from my professional side, but Mr. Young is also one of my constituents. And so I'm so excited and with immense pride as you see his work of art that's being held by my colleague, Commissioner Thorne, whereas Gilbert Yo

So Dave Manuel, would you please tell everybody who you are even though they don't know who you are? You're the king.

All right, speakers, you have two minutes. Strike that. When you have 15 seconds left of your two minutes, I'll say 15 seconds, and that will be your clue to begin to conclude your remarks. First speaker.

I think I was looking for, so these are the accurate numbers, is that correct? Correct. Okay, question on, well are they or are they not? We still have a TBD noted in that July separation bucket. That's correct.

Okay, but below, okay, all right, okay. So the net new we have is, our goal is 200, correct? Correct. It's July 9th, and we're at 25. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you for providing the average days of hiring. Those, just so I understand it, those are for folks, average hiring time for folks who are specifically doing this type of work, right? Not in the sheriff's office.

Okay. It might be interesting to also understand... what those measurements are for, in the Sheriff's Department, outside of these jail detention rules. Can we determine that?

And then do one with and without. I'm specifically interested in this sort of non-detention population to see if... see if the sort of same issue exists, you know, maybe indicative of two different screening practices for different types of individuals or not. So things like, you know, I guess in that reasons why somebody would be disqualified would be things like They have existing criminal indictments against them, that kind of thing? Okay. All right. Just curious on that. All right. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. So the net new hires is 25. Could be less due to separations that we're not aware of? And our goal should be 50 as of July 1. So we're... Halfway to our?

Oh, per quarter's 50. Per quarter's 50. So it should be 100. So we should be at 100 net new hires, and we're not. Correct. Yeah, I appreciate the amount of detail that you've provided us. In a meeting with the sheriff yesterday, he expressed a dislike for Wall's group. Do you understand any of his frustrations? Has he spoken to you directly about that?

Okay, and then he also said that the success that the Walls Group had in recruiting in Philadelphia is completely different than our situation here in Fulton County. Are you aware what those differences might be?

Okay, because we hired the walls group as commissioners because we saw the need the crisis that exists in our jail situation and the need for more detention officers. But the sheriff, I'm glad he doubled his number of investigators to try to speed along the process. That's very helpful. But are there any other actions the sheriff is doing as far as recruitment to really expand his recruitment, change his process, despite having the Walsh Group?

But I think he added the lie detector test recently, like in the past. Are you hired a full-time polygrapher?

Okay, so the Walls Group was recommended by our monitor. We're trying to get out of the consent decree. So we're trying to do and appease the monitor. In the event that the sheriff decides that he just doesn't wanna work for the Walls Group, do we have any other avenues? Does he have any other avenues to help this desperate situation that we're in in hiring detention officers?

Okay, thank you for that. I appreciate your presentation today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the discussion about what was different from Philadelphia to Fulton County, you know, while I certainly appreciate you, you know, giving us the list Justifications that the walls group has provided as to why the numbers are not. Up to what we would have hoped that's great, but I think the point in I was in the same meeting yesterday with the sheriff's office and. I think what they were getting at is that the environment was, the underlying environments are different. Not the maintenance of the jail, I'm not talking about that, but rather that Philadelphia, and you c

Yeah, I think, I mean, again, this is just what they said in the sheriff's meeting was that they have already asked for that modification. That was their understanding, so I would like some clarification on that. I think it's more relevant for us not how many people asked about the job or looked at it or partially filled out an application, but actual applications because, you know, lots of people might... be curious about a job and not do anything beyond that. So I don't know if that, I find that top line to be somewhat irrelevant anyway, but I do think it is misleading a little bit to the pu

just change the wording and done uh if it's not then let's just get some clarification on the right numbers i will verify that commission and have it updated if necessary for the next presentation thank you so much all right vice chair i'll do rock one thank you chairman um for the listening public uh let me let me say this because i was not i was not going to weigh in on this The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, thinking you're going to get different results. That's the definition of insanity. To take Philadelphia and use it as the litmus for Fullerton County and

So this is why I'm bringing this to the attention of the listening public, of the taxpaying citizens. You want to hold new applicants to a higher threshold than you hold to your staff, allegedly. What do I mean by that? There are people that are in an employer right now in Fulton County Sheriff's Department that could work in nobody else's Sheriff's Department. He knows it and I know it. but that's his choice because he sees the value. However, we know that we have had issues with, we had actually temporary staffing there that had all kind of different dings or whatever, but they were allowed

Thank you. I think that the main area in which that was the case was the physical agility test. Is that correct?

Right, so that would back up what the vice chair is saying, correct? That if the current staff is not constantly taking a physical agility test once a year or something like that, then the new people are held to a higher standard. But I think he's removing that, correct?

The other question I just forgot to ask when I was in the queue earlier was just, there were in the list of reasons why people were not ultimately hired who were sent over, completed packets sent over from the Walz Group. Some of those reasons, we could certainly argue about the polygraph or whatever, but some of them were valid reasons. If someone had a criminal background and that wasn't caught by the Walz Group, that's pretty important. If they were not passing a drug test, things like that. So I'm just wondering, in particular on the criminal background check, if Walls has been able to cor

Okay. Listen, I also meant to say when we first started this conversation that I think, you know, it does sound like we've had a lot of issues. Obviously, the numbers show that, that we were hoping to have almost 100 people hired. At this point, we don't. That said, it does seem like with the July numbers and with the changes that we're talking about that have been made on both sides, the Sheriff's side, Wall's side, that we are making progress and moving in the right direction. So just for clarification, do you feel like... in the next quarter we will be on track to have 50.

And I think when I was asking questions about this last time, I asked about the reasons for the separations, and I think you were going to get that in some form or fashion, is that correct?

Yeah, just a couple points. We contracted with a group who was able to get how many people hired and brought into the jail in a very expedient amount of time? How many people? That are working in the jail with the allied contract? Oh, allied.

It's about 100 FTEs. 100 FTEs, right. And that got stood up in fairly rapid order. I believe when we ran the job analysis and so forth and the study and so forth, and I think this was confirmed in the monitor's report, that the sheriff's office is actually top-heavy and has hired... more people in non-officer administrative positions, is that correct? That was a finding in our staffing report that was completed. I think the monitor did acknowledge that in the report. I cannot recall. But anyway, it's acknowledged somewhere in one report, one way or the other. And the reason I say that is like,

Thank you. I guess I'm wondering, I remember in a previous meeting you said there were 400 hires of detention officers, right?

Okay, and so this chart includes detention officer hires and deputies, or this chart is just for deputies?

Okay, so jail unit hiring 19 January, that includes detention officers and deputies.

Okay, and then this is the updated one that shows the 10, not the 25 now. Yes, correct. And so that 10 includes detention officers as well as deputies.

Okay. That are all in the jail unit. And you anticipate, you said there are another nine coming on today? Or is that nine included in the 10? No.

Okay. And do we know how many I guess of the separations are going to other Fulton County departments like the police or the DA.

Okay, so do we know the number of transfers?

I think that would be helpful to know as well. The left hand needs to know what the right hand is doing. If, in fact, we are losing sheriff's officers because they're joining the police or going to be an investigator for a DA or solicitor, I think we should be keeping track of that as well. All right, I think that's all that I have for this term.

Did we have any other questions? We're good. Thank you, commissioners.

Thanks, Vice Chair. Thanks, Mr. Narocco. Just a few questions. Where we, so we had this in the state legislature, we had this, the passage, I believe, of support for a new Superior Court judge. I know there was questions about, you know, kind of, would the funding mechanism come with it, and all that sort of stuff, but where are we at with that, and then sort of what procedurally could happen with that? And this sort of speaks a little bit to this, you know, the fourth bullet down there. I know it's a different thing, but

So was it, for it to occur, was it contingent upon state funding or would there be some sort of option for us to fund that independent of state funding?

It shouldn't be, but I just remember, I thought I remembered some discussion at that time, which would be odd.

Okay, all right. So it's in abeyance until, you know, whatever their secondary review of their budget takes place.

Okay. We've got a couple of these things anticipated launch August. Are these like, we're pretty darn sure they're gonna be happening in August?

All right, so firm on the bond review. Yes, sir. Okay, all right, 8-3, you said, okay. And then this consolidated trial of motions calendar, that still needs a lot of work.

But you have to hire for and all that sort of stuff, right? Correct. So this has some lead time for it to really play out and happen and have any sort of impact. But bond review calendar, start in 8-3, that's a no. Text reminders, target. Consolidated trial, needs more work. On this, the stand up arrest, so forth, maybe you said that in here, like we're thinking we could have this sort of operational potentially by when?

Okay, I see, by end of 2026. Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. All right. So this is creeping along as well. Do we call how many bookings we have into the jail roughly? I know it varies, but just a rough annual average of that? How many total bookings? Yeah.

So upwards of 24,000. So, you know, impact on this, under 1,000, in terms of what, you know, potential impact on that, if it's fully launched. And then on the last prong, Is this just for, I guess, is this just for private lab testing or? It would be the full package.

So that's what we mean, we're talking about expert testimony relative to the testing. Yes, sir.

Okay. And as it stands right now, The GBI provides that service to all courts around the state. 100, yep, every judicial district. At no cost to them. All right, okay. So this would be other labs. How would those be identified, sourced, approved, validated, et cetera?

Okay. Are those, are these labs more, Do other jurisdictions kind of use this stuff too? Are these like state contracts that are? That I don't know, sir.

Okay. And then this population impact, up to 2,000 current drug cases eliminated. I guess I'm... I'm having trouble a little bit just sort of translating this into like what that ultimately looks like and means for impact within kind of our jail facilities.

Okay. But would this suggest that when you say up to 2,000 current drug cases eliminated, this would mean that whether they're incarcerated or not, would this mean that there'd be 2,000 cases that would be- Disposed of. Disposed of annually that wouldn't be disposed of?

And wasn't there some additional funding and so forth that was done for the sexual assault kits over the past two to three years?

I'm talking about more like at a state level and some other grants that were provided for that?

Okay, which is the same concept that we're talking about here, right? It's sexual assault slash rape falls in that. Okay, that grant is sort of specific to that kind of funding for that.

Okay, but this one may not necessarily, I mean, this sounds like that's more specific to other, okay. Okay, all right, thank you.

Thank you. This information is great. I just want to remind you that I think that the best way, particularly for the warrants, is for people to be able to call and check and see if they have a warrant. As a criminal defense attorney, that's one of the number one questions that I get people calling, asking. hey can you check and see if i have a warrant and so i think people want to resolve their warrants and hopefully we can work with our justice partners to develop a system that allow people to resolve their warrants without having to be arrested and taken to diversion

As long as there's a system, the outcome is the same. Yes, sir. So the way or the methodology is not as important as the outcome. Thank you.

All right. Do we have any other questions or any other parts of the... Does that conclude your...

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. It makes me think of that saying, build it and they will come. So thank you for that information. I appreciate it.

Colleagues, do we have any other questions, concerns? Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, second by Vice Chair Abdul-Rahman. Please vote. And the vote is open.

We have a motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdulrahman, second by Commissioner Thorne. Commissioner Barrett.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I was just hoping we could get a detailed explanation, please.

It's my understanding from the conversations I've had about this since it's bubbled up for us that the petition that we will submit will cover all of the jurisdictions that we bill for, correct?

And the jurisdictions that we, there are several cities that we don't collect for, that our tax commissioner does not collect for, do they have to file their own petition?

Yeah, I mean, I think regardless of whose responsibility it is, I mean, all of the citizens we're talking about in any of the 15 cities are Fulton County residents. So I think we want to make sure that all of the jurisdictions are completely aware and educated on this process. They understand what's happening, what their options are and what they have to do. Because at the end of the day, we're going to get a lot of questions from our citizens if we are not getting the message out clearly to the cities and to them, frankly. So correct me if I'm wrong here, but it is possible based on this proc

Well, but also correct me if I'm wrong here, but if one of the jurisdictions, any one of the jurisdictions does not use the 2025 millage rate, if they change their millage rate up or down, then they would also have a correction. So for everybody in that jurisdiction would get a corrective bill.

Okay. Yeah. So I just want to make sure that we're, and this may be a communications thing too, that we're doing the best job we can to communicate not only to the cities, but also to the citizens, because I guarantee you, we're not going to get any questions from someone who gets a refund, but the people who get an additional tax bill, I think are going to be probably pretty upset so and I think this may have some impact on whether legitimate or not that they're gonna have concerns and questions and I think the escrow account questions are gonna come up for people and all of those kind of thi

Okay, but not the ones that we don't bill for. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, I'm looking at our, you know, external affairs because I know you guys, part of your role is to, you know, be in contact with the cities. So, yeah. Yeah.

Okay, thank you. And the other question I had, and you may or may not want to stay there, but first of all, I want to thank Mr. Conley from our assessor's office for a really thorough and clear explanation of how we got here. And the wording of the resolution that is before us indicates that there was a higher number than normal of land packages that were not processed, which is why we find ourselves in this situation, correct?

And so for the folks who are impacted specifically in those land packages, those parcels that are impacted, they will also potentially have some confusion depending on, I know some of the properties are not, it's not an individual residential owner, but some may be, or an individual commercial owner, that kind of thing. But Mr. Connolly has said that he would provide some further information to us on um where those properties are throughout the county so that we know for our citizens in our districts who might be affected and are prepared to handle those questions as well because they may be g

You finished Commissioner Barrett? I am. Okay. Commissioner Ellis.

Yeah, I'm gonna be supportive of the TCO and the resolution moving forward for us to seek the TCO, but I just wanna just verify a few things again. We'll file this once, and then this can be utilized by any taxing jurisdiction, regardless of whether we bill for them or not. Is that correct, Dr. Ferdinand, to confirm that to you? He has confirmed it to me, notwithstanding that Sue's still checking.

Okay, so they have the ability to do that. All right, I'll just say up front, where we're at right now is really an unacceptable point. I mean, this is highly disappointing. The two parties that are involved in this, I might cast some blame one way or the other, but you got one job and it didn't get done. And that's a failure that impacts all of us as well as all of our jurisdictions. I think communication is critical to these other parties. I've had some of this communication directly myself, so I do understand that it doesn't seem like there has been a high level of, much of any communicatio

Okay, all right, just so we're clear on that. And then we're gonna be going through our normal process of millage rate setting but that will occur at some future point in time once we receive a digest. And at this point in time, we have no estimated timeline for receipt of that digest.

I agree that communication hasn't been the best. I represent all of Johns Creek and I got an email last Monday morning that they were setting having hearings for their millage rate at 11 o'clock. I quickly contacted the mayor to make him aware that we have this issue and that we were gonna pass this TCO. He was unaware. I told him to call our tax commissioner to get clarification because he was asking me questions and I by no means am an expert on this in advisement. So I think there was lack of communication between, I know for sure with Johns Creek, I checked with Alpharetta. Alpharetta does

Okay, because that would be great if we could get this.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate that clarification on that. But yeah, just make sure we're doing everything we can to help the assessor's office get these assessments in a timely fashion. And I do agree with the confusion with the TCO that we're gonna get a lot of questions. When am I getting a second bill? I have sympathy for the school board who has a budgeting process that goes July 1 to July 1. They're blindly having to set budgets and they have all the simplifications with these new tax breaks for seniors. They don't know how their tax digest has been affected by that. And I'm supportive of

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Just one other thing. First of all, I'm also supportive, because obviously we need to get this done. But it was brought to my attention that potentially one of the things that is problematic for the tax assessor side is the technology that they are using. And I'm not sure if it's kind of what you were mentioning, Commissioner Thorne, or additional. But I think it's... i guess that's a question slash comment that the technology may not be the latest and greatest available for tax assessors offices i don't i'm not an expert on this either but i just want to make sure

okay and then just for clarification i have commissioner thorne mentioned um i think she said 292 parcels i think is that what you said commissioner thorne it's land packages yeah so my understanding was it's land packages which represents about a thousand parcels and again many of them not residential areas and things like that but still it is it is a significant number just to be just to want to get clarification on that commissioner ellis

Again, similar to the conversation we were having relative to the sheriff's hiring, I don't wanna hear excuses. We had a plan which we adopted, a timeline which we had all agreed to, and it got missed. I've listened in to meetings, heard stuff and all that, And I hear a lot about how sausage is made and all that sort of stuff, but bottom line is, one job to do, there were enough tools there to get the work done, and it didn't get done. There's no blame on this for, you know, we can't blame a system. you know, just like we can't blame a building over at the jail, we can't blame this technology,

Well, first of all, Mr. Conley, did you want to say anything? Did you?

So, okay. I was just, if you wanted to, I'm not. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for being present. I want to say this because I have received several emails and they run the gamut from someone being granted a freeze, and then they got a bill that was totally different from what happened, and so I'm assuming that this may be as a result of it. This is a hiccup that happened, and I'm gonna apologize to all the taxpaying citizens of Fulton County. Not gonna throw anybody under the bus, because at the end of the day, Fulton County is a big deal, But when we have a hiccup, it bears an

Oh, I'm so sorry. We got into that conversation.

Okay, favorable motion by Vice Chair Abdulrahman, seconded by Commissioner Barrett. Commissioner Thorne, you have the floor.

Thanks for being here today, Nadine. I just have the questions. We're using Abacus and we used to use Dover. Is there a reason we're not using Dover anymore?

To have one vendor, okay. And then with this department temporary staff, you have 298 employees listed here. Are some of those couriers?

So there was a public comment here made today about couriers picking up ballots every day of early voting, breaking the seals, physically counting, not tabulating, but physically counting the ballots. Are those temp workers that are involved in that process?

And when they pick up those ballots, are there two couriers per?

Okay, is there anything else you'd like to kind of clear up or misinformation-wise?

Yeah, that would be great, because I know you addressed it in your last board, I think it was your last board meeting last month, why you are collecting them, counting them, and re-scanning them, and replacing the ballot images, so it'd be good for us to have a written...

Yes, I understand we did 18,800 or so re-scans this last election.

And then when we started, if you could give us a history too of when we started this process, because I understand we started it in 2024. And who's giving you the directive is Secretary of State's office too, would be good. Sure, will do. That would be great, thank you.

Thanks, Vice Chair. Thank you for being here, Ms. Williams. Just a few questions. What did we spend for temp staffing in the primary and primary runoffs?

Okay. Yeah, that would be useful to know. And we're using, these are different parties than we use in the primary? Different staffing firm?

Okay, in the, this is a total not to exceed amount of 8.95 million. This is within the scope of what your budget allows right now, is that correct?

Okay, and then it looks like there's sort of it's split 6.6 for the general and 2.4 for runoff, so would those be up to amounts too? Kind of like we were just planning.

Right, but it'd be up to, we shouldn't go above the 6.6 for the general portion and all that. So if there is no runoff, there'd be 2.4 million that wouldn't be spent.

No, I mean, I'm just saying that The, I mean, there would be a minimum of, you know, 2.4. Right, that would be available, okay. All right, and, but you're saying you think the, the cost for temp staffing in the primary was greater than this amount? Lower, okay, all right, I thought you said greater, okay, all right, thank you for clarifying that. Do you think significantly lower, or?

Okay. All right. I won't allow you to speculate, but if you could provide that, that would be, that'd be helpful. It's not going to.

Ms. Williams, uh, there, there was, um, I'm sorry, Commissioner Ellis, will you finish? Ms. Williams, there was accusation during public comments. And I just want to openly say to you and the chair of the elections board that we can all agree to disagree, but we don't have to call people out their name. And I will never ever be silent, no matter who says that, whether I agree or disagree, I've been called everything but a child of God, but it's not what I'm called, it's what I answer to. And so I say to you, on behalf of me, I can't speak for the entire board, that that was distasteful, unnece

Commissioner Arrington. I was just going to say, I couldn't agree more. We can disagree without being disagreeable, but there's no reason to call anyone out of their name or anything like that. And maybe this is what Commissioner Thorne asked you earlier, but the allegations about someone opening ballots for 18 days, it would be great if you were able to speak to that now. If not, I guess I can wait on the memo.

I was just going to see if you could kind of elaborate on that process. When you bring them back to the hub and you physically cut the seals and physically count them, are there poll watchers there to watch the process?

And it's done in the tabulation, the fishbowl room, or where is it done?

So the caged area. I believe when I came there to watch the intake or observe the intake of the early voting equipment, because our early voting equipment comes in on Friday and sits there until Tuesday until it can be tabulated. Nobody was allowed back in the, not even a, Board of Registration elections member was allowed to go back and see where the ballots were stored. So if you are re-scanning them back in the ballot cage, is there a change to the process? Like can the public go back there and see that?

people are unaware that over 12,000 ballots were scanned and ballot images replaced.

The re-scanning is not the same thing as... Yeah, the counting on the first, the chain of custody... see it's resealed by somebody in the warehouse could be a temp worker and then when you have to do the re-canvas you're taking those ballots if they're off like say if you had 200 ballots but you're at 199 so there's there's the

Okay, yeah, because as a candidate who was on the ballot in the primary and you re-scanned almost 19,000 ballots and replaced the ballot images, I was not made aware of that. So in the future, like this coming election, candidates will be made aware of a re-canvas of a precinct?

Okay, whatever, whenever you have to rescan because you're missing one ballot and you have to rescan them and replace those ballot images so that if I go and vote in a precinct, my original scan that i did could be replaced by a future scan that's done if you want to see your original you can put in an open records request but again it's not deleted okay yeah well that's good that the original ballot scans aren't deleted so that's some good clarification to have too thank you

So Ms. Williams, my takeaway from this is we need some education. We need some voter education. We need, I think Commissioner Arrington speaks to a lot definitions of what a process is, what accounting is. because counting and a process, scanning and a process is two different things. And so I think my takeaway is we just need a little bit more education so people will know what's going on. And I'm a firm believer if you're educated in the subject matter, then there's less tendency to give out incorrect information. But if you're not educated in it, then sometimes things happen. And so if noth

Yeah, I just want to speak to the process because this is, because I've certainly gotten bombarded with it for months now, and I even heard about ballot images being replaced in 2024, 12,000 of them. and the questions that were arising and the bubbling that was arising. So I think the concern is that we just have to be transparent as possible, contact all entities. When those ballots come in, yeah, we're physically counting them, we're cutting the seal that the manager sealed them at the precinct, we're cutting that seal, we have to make sure that we are transparent and that that cage like nob

It was when I went down for a presidential primary just to observe and we weren't allowed, but yet a temp worker was there outside the ballot cage protecting it and the temp workers had access, but a board or registrations member did not have access to it. So there is the concern that ballots could be altered or switched, so that's why we just need ultimate transparency. Love to see the new cage area that we're gonna have to even broadcast that, that look, we're taking these extra steps to make sure that the ballot, which is your receipt, is secured and it can't be altered or tampered with by

Yeah, I think I have had my staff attend those and it's very, very elementary, the details of tabulation and counting and logic and accuracy testing. If you wanna go into detail on that, that would be great. But I would love to even attend your poll manager training classes if that's at all possible.

Oh, I'm so sorry. All righty. And the vote is open. I know Chairman Pitts, I'm still presiding. Please vote.

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Thorne. Is there a second? Seconded by Vice Chair Abdul-Rahman. Please vote.

All right, a favorable motion by Vice Chair Abdirahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

All right, motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne. Please vote.

All right, motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. Commissioner Barrett, you have the floor.

Just a quick question. Does this budget that's being, this is just to increase the budget, or not the budget, but the spending authority with this particular vendor, but does this cover the HVAC issues in the jail as well, or is this just the other buildings?

Okay, because it is, first of all, the 10th floor has some ongoing AC or HVAC issues, but I also visited Rice Street again about a week and a half ago, and there were significant AC issues there. So I just want to make sure that we're we're increasing this enough to address the pretty serious issues we're having now in particular there. I know there was no AC in the kitchen when I was there and several of the units. So just wanting to make sure that we're not gonna have to keep coming back to the drawing board here.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Arrington. Commissioner Barrett followed by Commissioner Thorne.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Overall, of course, I have no issue with the organizations that have been chosen to receive the arts funding, but I do want to understand better the logic around the $142,430 being taken out of the $3 million pot to cover, it sounds like last year's, some last contracts from last year's arts grant program that weren't, the paperwork perhaps wasn't done in time or something.

I mean, conceptually, I'm missing something here because I'm sort of not okay with that. The logic for me being there was a certain amount of money appropriated last year that was divvied up among the various organizations paperwork notwithstanding. And then there was another $3 million allotted this year, minus the $200 specifically to the veterans, et cetera, or veterans-related programming. But there should have been a full $3 million given to this year's recipients. So I'm confused about why the funding for the backlog wasn't moved from some other contingency fund to cover the difference b

I hear you and I hear you, but at the end of the day, there was a certain amount of money allotted in 2025. It was awarded in 2025. It was not given to the recipients in a timely manner for whatever reason. I'm not throwing shade about why it didn't happen, but it didn't. And then there was 3 million that we approved for recipients of the 2026 grant program. $142,430 of that was held back from the current recipient pool. That is incorrect and needs to be rectified. really care whether it's from somewhere in your budget, not that I don't care, but it doesn't matter to me whether it's from somew

Wouldn't this just be a budget sounding?

So what you're saying is, if this is approved as written today, it does not preclude us from awarding another $142,430 to existing recipients, is that correct?

Well, many of the recipients, as I said, didn't get the full amount. So it may just be a matter of divvying it up to existing recipients, but it should be. But I just wanna make sure that if this is approved as written, that that still can be accomplished.

Okay, I mean, I'll support it because I don't want to hold the money back from the current recipients any longer than necessary, but I do feel like this has to be addressed. Otherwise, it's not in alignment with the resolution passed for the three million.

Yeah, I am a little disappointed in my district. Actually, all of North Fulton, we're kind of received the least amount of money, although District Five, you're right in there with us as well. But my awardees, it went down 35% this year in the amount that we got. As always, District Four, Atlanta, They have the biggest amount. They had over a million dollars awarded to them. What is Atlanta's arts budget? Because I know they fund these entities as well.

Over two million. So in Fulton County, in the city of Atlanta, we have 76 entities that get both that we're funding. Fulton County taxpayers are funding. And a lot of these organizations have annual budgets of over a million dollars and their executives are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. So from a taxpayer perspective, I would like to grow the arts. I would like to expand the arts. I would like to give to organizations that perhaps could use that little boost.

Yes, more grassroots. I would like to see more events up in North Fulton County. A lot of our arts members up there are even unaware that we have grants provided down here. And the cities have very, very small budgets, or no budget, really, for the arts in other parts of the county. And it just seems like we are focusing so much on Atlanta. In the future, I would just like to see us grow a little bit more in South Fulton, District Five, District One, District Two, those areas. that we don't seem to be allocating hardly any money towards it with such a big pot that we have. I also had some ques

Yeah, because art is such a subjective thing that it'd be great if it was more transparent on the review panel. How are they reviewing these applications? If there could be an element of how much government funding outside sources they got the previous year, because you want community buy-in. You don't want to fund a government fund. basically program that 50% or more of their funds are coming from applying from a grant on a federal level, applying at the state level, applying at us, our level, and the city level. So if we could have some type of element that the community is behind this organ

And as you know, someone you're very familiar with who's on the board had his music festival got declined due to an immigration form or something, a lack of providing that. Is that something new to the process, or is that something that's been there for a while?

Okay, I'd appreciate that, and if you could keep me in the loop on that, I'm sure I will be in the loop no matter what, but if you can keep me on the loop specifically what you and your department wants to do, and I'll see how I can fill in as well.

Thank you, Chairman. Executive staff, this process that Dave Manuel did, is that something new that he did, or is that a process that other departments have done as well as far as reallocation? Or is this something that just he did on his own and is foreign? Or is this a common practice depending on the department?

Thank you, Mr. Whitmore. I think for the listening public, it is very unfair to come in here and raise hell about $142,000, but you don't have that same energy. For the sheriff's office, you don't have that same energy. For the DA's office, you don't have that same energy. For other departments, so as opposed to me saying it behind your back, I'm going to say it here. this is politics 101. mr manuel did something that we pay him to do which is run his department to the best of his ability and take an amount of money and spread it out the best that he can and i take issue with this very thinly

Dave, District 5 should never be last. What's going on? No, so I do want to say I agree with Commissioner Barrett about the 142,000. I'm hopeful that we can find some contingency funds to make sure that we make this year's contribution 3 million as prescribed. Additionally, what I also want to say is that although the money may be distributed in different ways and different things, typically, there are more arts organizations in the city of Atlanta but a lot of times these organizations someone may live in College Park and then go perform in Atlanta or go perform in North Fulton and so it bene

I'm calling a decorum violation. I'd like you to rule on it, please.

Then we can vote on it. All right, Commissioner Barrett has stated her belief that the comments by Vice Chair Abdulrahman was a violation. So let's vote. I can rule myself or we can take a vote, so I'm choosing for us to take a vote.

Upon the order, Chairman. Yes. We don't need a second to that? To what she's asking for? Is there a second required for it?

Okay, all right, let's vote. You wanna research it?

I mean, I've got discussion. I was unsure, I didn't know who Vice Chair was talking about. I thought I heard her reference in the Executive Committee. So I don't know.

With all due respect, Commissioner Arrington, I was talking about everybody. I wasn't talking about just Commissioner Barrett. I was talking about the executive team. I was talking about Madam DA, Sheriff, and everything. And I do have freedom of speech. And so if somebody is offended by what I said, then that's on them. I don't think it's a decorum violation because at the end of the day, it is my opinion. And so here again, I've heard worse said down here and complete silence. But go ahead.

Okay. So we'll be factual here now. When I have a choice of... ruling that it was or putting it before the body for a vote? I chose to put it before the body for a vote and the parliamentarian has ruled that it requires a second. Is there a second? Just a minute. Go ahead.

To be clear, the mocking of the way i spoke when i addressed this issue is what i am referring to that was done twice within the vice chair's comments if no one else agrees that it is a violation of decorum to mock a fellow commissioner then so be it i will withdraw my request i will withdraw my motion but at the end of the day that's not how we should treat each other i am sorry that you don't like that i am you know determined to support the full 3 million being delivered to the recipients of art grants in 2026. I would disagree that I don't also vehemently oppose or stand for other things a

All right, motion is withdrawn. The motion on the floor is to approve. Motion is approved by Vice Chair, Dr. Rachman, seconded by Commissioner Arrington.

All right, colleagues, it is 1-0-6. I've got two requests of recess for lunch, so. We'll entertain a motion to recess for lunch and executive session where we may consider issues that deal with real estate, personnel, and litigation.

All right, good afternoon. We will resume the regular order of business without any objections. Madam County Attorney, let's take items from executive session.

Motion to do so by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman. Please vote.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Harrington, seconded by Vice Chair Abdur Rahman.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdi-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Arrington.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Barrett.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Errington, seconded by Vice Chair Abdur Rahman.

Thank you, Madam County Attorney. Continue, Madam Clerk.

Motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Barrett.

I have a motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

Thank you. Commissioner Arrington followed by Commissioner Thorne.

Thank you. This looks real good. I'm glad to hear about it. But I want to give us another challenge because the existing behavioral center is in the city of Atlanta. And now we're getting one for North Fulton. We need one in South Fulton. So we need to go get $300 million. We're another $100 million because we need to make sure that we have equity throughout the county. No problem with the service center in North Fulton. But if we're going to have one in Atlanta, if we're going to put one in North Fulton, we need to be making plans to put one in South Fulton as well. We have the same behaviora

And so what is the one you're doing in August?

Okay, and then is that a facility where the new South Fulton Behavioral Health Disability Crisis Center?

Okay, so there wouldn't be space at the other center to house this, or it just needs to be in a separate building?

Awesome. Thank you. Commissioner Thorne?

Yes, I can tell you that 4700 has been really, really nice to see, well done, the work that's all been done there. I enjoy having my office there. I enjoy interacting and watching it as it's blossoming and coming on board. Latrina, I just wanna thank you for all you've done. I know in the community, in the mental health space, they are so well respected. not only in Fulton County, but in Forsyth County. Like they wish they had what we have. And our investment in behavioral health is outstanding. So I really kudos to your leadership. And I wanted to kind of give a shout out to Representative Ja

Yeah, I'll add my kudos for great work, you know, just to say, you know, we've come a long way, baby. I mean, this thing, when we were with things back in 10, 11, 12 years ago to where we are today, to the point that the manager made from, you know, really, you know, we're, I won't say persona non grata with the state, but we had no relationship with the state, and, you know, to see this come through to where, you know, they're going to be providing the full funding. I mean, it'll be a state center. It carries the Fulton County name, right? But it'll be, you know, part of the state network and

All right, the motion on the floor is to approve.

All right, motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

Motion by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Vice Chair Abdur Rahman.

All right, a motion by our Vice Chair, Dr. Rachman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. I'm sorry, Commissioner Eric, did you want to be heard?

Yes, I want to ask, what are the roles? I mean, I don't know how we clarify them unless we know what they are. Good afternoon, Commissioner.

Okay, that sounds good. I guess for me, just being unfamiliar with the process, I mean, if the water lines are under the road, Then who's responsible for cutting the road to get to the water lines? Fulton County. Okay, because that's the only way we can get to them. That's correct. All right, but then after we cut the road to get to the water line, then it's their responsibility to repave the road. That's correct. Okay. And then the reason this is different or this wouldn't apply in South Fulton is because Fulton County is not responsible for the water in South Fulton. So this is tied to our w

All right, motion is to approve. I'm sorry, Commissioner.

So do we need a similar agreement with all the cities in North Fulton or just Alpharetta?

Motion to approve by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Commissioner Barrett. Vice Chair, Dr. Rahman, followed by Commissioner Barrett.

Clerk, I want to, for 26-0413, 26-0414, and 26-0415, I want to co-sponsor.

That's fine with me. I'm happy to have you as a co-sponsor. Okay, so on 260413, the one before us right now, this is for Folio House. It's a pretty cool project, actually. We already approved phase one of this as a board, which was the old historic Atlanta Journal Constitution Building, or Atlanta Constitution Building, rather, and this is the affordable housing piece of that project. So it's on the currently vacant and adjacent lot right there. It's not displacing anybody. It's great for downtown. And so we're combining historic preservation with affordable housing. It's close to transit. It'

Motion to approve by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Commissioner Barrett.

I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, seconded by Commissioner Thorne. Commissioner Barrett.

Thank you. This resolution is to approve the release of $50,000 of our Westside Tad Increment. This one is really around supporting local small business, but also has a historic preservation aspect. This is the Muses building in downtown Atlanta. There are several vacant stores there. This will help get those populated. And then there are some existing small businesses there. So the vacant spaces will be made available with first priority to local small businesses at an affordable rate. And the cool historic part is that one of these storefronts is 66 Peachtree, which was the location for the

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, seconded by Commissioner Thorne. Once again, please vote.

All right, a motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, seconded by Commissioner Thorne. Commissioner Barrett.

Thank you. This resolution is for the release of $125,000 of our Westside TAD increment. This creates 194 jobs and provides opportunities to retain Georgia's high-tech talent here in state. This was a part of a sort of a collaborative bid by the state of Georgia, city of Atlanta, and Select Fulton to win this project over Westside. I think it was three other states, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Michigan. And so the package we put together included this grant and we're just excited to be a part of it and excited to have those jobs here in Fulton. So again, would appreciate your favorable vote

You have a motion to approve by Commissioner Arrington, seconded by Commissioner Barrett. Commissioner Barrett, you have the floor.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, with all original intention put aside, I'd like to hold this for now. It's come to my attention that there are some questions about this one, so I'd like to go back to the drawing board, get some more information, and bring it back at a future meeting, if that's okay with everybody.

Is that a substitute motion to hold? Sure. All right, the motion on the floor is to approve. Substitute motion to hold. Is there a second? Second. All right, properly moved and seconded. Let's vote on the motion to hold.

Right, I have a motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdurrahman, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. Commissioner Ellis, Commissioner Barrett, Commissioner Errington. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

If you'll indulge me, this may take a little bit long to kind of walk through, but I think this is an important topic that we need to address, so I'll try to be as succinct as possible. First, I want to talk about what this resolution does and doesn't do. This resolution would declare this board's opposition to the proposed extension of existing city of Atlanta tax allocation districts in a recent piece of legislation that was passed by the city of Atlanta City Council. It would establish the policy conditions which must be met for our consent to any new extended or recreated TADs. It would es

Okay. All right, and secondly, in terms of the legality of this, this requires that a redevelopment plan be submitted. And this is not some sort of minor, you know, kind of procedural gap. It's a very significant one because the state statute requires that that redevelopment plan be adopted, specified the estimated tax allocation increment base before that district is created. What the city did is they voted to lock in a 30-year up to $7 billion commitment and then promised to write the plans that state law requires as a precondition. And now we would be being asked to consent to that same inv

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's a lot to unpack here. And I think I want to start by saying that The idea of sort of rejecting the sort of ask that's out there that we extend all TADs, and now not all eight, but six TADs for 30 years without any more detail than that, is not acceptable. And so I'm in complete agreement with the idea of rejecting that very vague and high-level request of the extension for all the TADs. I sat, as everybody knows, I'm the person who sits on the Invest Atlanta board as our Fulton County representative. I sat in that same capacity on the NRI commission. and said t

So I'm saying that only because my belief in the county attorney's office and our team's offices is that we would do the legally correct thing. We would not enter into an IGA that was breaking state law. in any way. And that in the context of any new IGA, we could certainly build in any of the things suggested here. For example, a cap or a different number of years or whatever it might be. So I I feel like I disagree with some of the assertions that you've made, Commissioner Ellis, in your comments today. The city council's resolution does not require a response from us. We're choosing to have

I'll second that motion. Are you finished?

I am. I made a substitute motion to hold.

So, I think Commissioner Ellis, you did a great job of laying out why, at the very least, you believe that the county should not participate in this. Certainly, we have. a consent order at the jail, we're building a new facility at the jail, renovating another facility at the jail, just committed $300 million for a hospital, and we have limited resources available. I guess for me, I would at least benefit from having more time to I guess one, hear from the county manager and his team about this, the county attorney as well. And frankly, I would probably want to hear from the city of Atlanta an

All right, colleagues, the motion on the floor is to hold. Christian Thorne, you still want to be heard? We can. All right. All right, let's deal with the motion. Motion on the floor is to hold. Let's vote. You want to be heard? All right. Commissioner Ellis, you want to be heard now? All right. You want to be heard on the motion to hold? No, no. The motion on the floor is to hold. Okay. Commissioner Thorne said no. Commissioner Ellis said hold. You're next in the queue.

I'm going to order, Mr. Chair. I don't know that the discussion has to be on the motion. I think the discussion can be on the agenda item regardless of the motion.

Okay, then I'll go ahead and speak then to that. I just didn't want to hold up a vote and you guys telling me you're not talking on the poll. Like it's been reiterated many times by everybody on this board, I am not opposed to TADS. They are great economic development tools. And I've seen them work. And I've seen some great things, some great projects. Sadly, I've been in Atlanta for 40 years and have seen some of the transformation. You know, going to Georgia Tech and watching the west side develop. And it was pretty much not developed at all. Actually, one of my classmates bought a warehouse

All right, the motion on the floor is to hold. Mr. Barrett? All right, the motion on the floor is to hold. Let's vote.

All right, back to the main motion, which was to approve.

All right, motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdul-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Thorne. Please vote.

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Thorne. Please vote.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Arrington, seconded by Vice Chair Abdul-Rahman. Please vote.

Excuse me, motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, seconded by Vice Chair Abdul-Rahman. Please vote.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Vice Chair Abdur-Rahman, please vote.

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Thorne, seconded by Vice Chair Abdulrahman, please vote.

We discussed it during the year. Okay. As well as the next one.

Any other matters that come before us today?