Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

All right, good morning everyone and welcome to the second regular meeting of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners. September, today is September 16th, 2026, it is 10.03 AM. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Actually, Commissioner Thorne will be on Zoom, is that correct? Where is she?

Now, she's eligible to be on Zoom today?

Thank you. Please rise for the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Nothing, all right. Nothing, commissioners. All right, a motion to adopt by Commissioner Barrett. Is there a second on this consent agenda? All right, I'll second.

All right, what's going on? Where's mine?

I'm not following, what are you saying? On page nine.

And it's in the order of 596 being first, correct? Correct, yes. Thank you.

All right, then there were, it's brought to my attention that there are, let's see, three or four items dealing with the Ethics Board, take all of those together. Okay, anything else? Anything else? Now, I have a constituent ask me to add to the agenda today a discussion on deed thefts. And I explained that it would take in order for us to add to the agenda, it would require a super majority vote, which is fine. and would also have to be an emergency. The request is that we discuss this today. There are citizens that come before us pretty much at every meeting to talk about deed thefts. So tha

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to talk about this. It might just be better to bring it on the next agenda or wait until we get five votes. We don't even have five votes. Even if everyone that was here supported it, we don't have the five votes, so it may just be better to be included on the next agenda or consider once the fifth vote comes in. Okay.

All right. That being the case, I'll add it to the agenda at the next meeting to discuss it. All right. Anything else? All right, on the agenda as amended. Is there a motion?

What is it? What's happening with the? On the agenda as amended. That's fine. All right, let's vote.

Motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett. Is there a second? All right, I'll second.

Now of course, is Commissioner Thorne voting or not voting?

Good morning, everyone. Chairman Pitts has asked me to read this proclamation on his behalf this morning. Y'all, come on both sides. Thank you all for being here. And the proclamation reads, whereas every year, World Field Epidemiology Day, it's not my day today, celebrated on September 7th, recognizes the role epidemiologists play in protecting the health of people around the world. The day honors field epidemiologists who track, investigate, and stop disease outbreaks. God, you guys are going to make me say this word like 20 times.

There you go. The goal of the Fulton County Board of Health's Office of Epidemiology is to track the occurrence, growth, and development of diseases and illnesses to protect the health of the general public in Fulton County. And whereas, while the ultimate goal is quick containment when the threat of an outbreak escalates, this program provides assessment and coordinates with other government agencies to create strategies and policies that address arising issues. And whereas in order to prevent the future spread or a return of an outbreak, the Epidemiology Office provides ongoing guidance and

All right. Do we have? Oh, there you go. Okay. Come on down. Isn't that a game show? Come on down, good people. And if some of you can go to the left and some stay to the right, just for picture purposes. We want to balance it out.

Price is right. That's it. Thank you, Commissioner Arrington. All right, good people. All righty. Whereas the state of Georgia is proud to be recognized as the number one state for business. You can clap for that. Supported by a competitive business climate and thriving community of small businesses and entrepreneurs across the state, and whereas small businesses are the backbone of Georgia's economy, representing more than 1.2 million businesses and employing more than 1.7 million Georgians across diverse industries and communities. And whereas Georgia's small businesses drive innovation, cre

I'd like to ask the folks from Winship to come on down and join us.

I'm so pleased to recognize Winship, and I'm gonna share this proclamation, and then I'll just share a couple of comments here at the end, in terms of why this has a special place for me. Whereas September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month, observed each year by health advocates and individuals concerned with men's prostate health and prostate cancer, and whereas about one in eight men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime, and about one in 44 men will die of prostate cancer, and whereas certain men face higher risk, including black men and those with a first-degree fam

I don't know. Y'all, this is a proclamation remembering the anniversary of the 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre, which occurred or began, actually, it was a multi-day massacre that occurred over four days starting on September 28th. 1906. And so Anne Hill Bond from the Fulton County Remembrance Coalition asked us in Fulton County to help them share this important anniversary and take some time to honor the history of the people who died and whose lives were impacted. The proclamation reads, whereas Fulton County is committed to truth telling about its full history, including its history of racial in

A motion to approve by Vice Chair Abdul-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Barrett.

Now, once again, is she voting? Yeah, but is she voting? Do you know, are you recording her as voting? Now we can hear you, yes. Is that a yes vote? Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Continue, Madam Clerk.

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

All right, then the other two will be heard at the same time.

This would be public sector and private sector.

But the hospitals themselves, the ones that we know are not. But there are private physician groups that are.

This is a very important point for the listening public.

Before you leave it, first, how do they make money?

Just one other question and I'll be quiet. Define a private equity firm for those who do not know what you mean by that.

And let's be clear, when you say this group, that means Fulton County employees.

Just real quick point of clarification. That's just for Anthem?

All right, Commissioner Arrington, followed by Commissioner Ellis.

Thank you guys for the work that you've done in pulling this together. I guess I hate that we're getting it At this late date, because there's not really any time to do anything else or to go back out or necessarily have any negotiations. Can we go back to slide eight?

Slide number eight. So- My understanding is that the rates are gonna increase by 20.6%, and that the proposal is to double the amount from 2,000 to 4,000 for those that are on the Anthem POS plan, is that correct?

And doubling that limit means that those employees will be paying twice as much as what they've been paying?

All right, and my understanding is, what is the total number of employees that we have on the health plan? Do you have those numbers?

Okay, so 4,000 enrolled in the Anthem Plan. And how many of those are enrolled in Anthem POS?

Okay, thank you. 1,300, okay, so the number I was told yesterday was 400.

Right, but so I think the long and short of it is the plan's going up by 20%. And we're proposing that 400 people or 400 or 1,300 people cover the cost of reducing it to 19.1%.

My questions aren't about the individual care. My questions are about the 20.6% increase. And the way to get that 20.6% increase down to 19.1% is by doubling the amount from 2,000 to 4,000 for those employees that are on the POS system, right?

That's the proposal. You're proposing that double the amount that these have people pay for out-of-pocket expenses.

Limit, before they hit the cap, double the amount. Yes, so double that amount for those 1,300 people, of which only 400 are hitting that number. So double that amount for those 1300 or really those 400 people in order to bring the cost down to 19.1% for everybody. So basically 400 people are paying to reduce the rate 1.5% for everybody else.

No, and I'm glad that you pointed out the flip side of that coin. I mean, the challenge, I guess, for me and us up here is not only do we have to look at this from saving the county money, but we also have to look at it from the employee side as well, right? Absolutely. And so there's a delicate balance between how do we save the county money and passing that burden on. But I think your point is, well received that if we don't do that, then all the other employees are covering the cost for.

All right, yeah, I mean, prices are going up everywhere. Prices are up at the grocery store, the gas station, so it only makes sense the healthcare costs would be going up. I just didn't want to unfairly place that burden on- Yes. 400 people to reducing the plan for everybody else. But again, I think your point is well received. That's the most expensive plan. So those people might be getting. they may be passing the burden on to all the other employees for having the most expensive plan.

Thank you. You kind of got at one of my questions, and that was just in terms of plan design on the out-of-pocket. These changes would put us more in line with kind of what the comparable folks are. So we've been on the low end. And sort of in the same vein, too, POS, HSA, and HMO, all those, we sort of got it sort of at the same, you know, premium change things, but is the experience in the HSA plan specifically been you know, as bad as any others, or are we blending these together just for practical purposes?

I guess, you know, our delta on that, I mean, I guess just sort of thinking about it, you know, in terms of you want to have stuff structured so that, you know, you're potentially incenting people to consider, you know, kind of, you know, plans where they take a little bit more risk and, you know, more actively manage it, right? So I guess in terms of this, Is this a typical approach in terms of just where you would treat all this sort of the same versus create a degree of distinguishment between HSA versus the other structures?

So right now we're potentially, participants in the HSA may be subsidizing some of the costs. Absolutely, yes, sir. Yeah, right now they're in some costs. That's basically where I'm getting at. And then on, you mentioned this Humana plan and taking advantage of that and all that. Is that built into kind of all of the figures that you showed us, or is that something that's not factored into? I'm not quite sure.

And the overall thing, if I go back to kind of this, you know, kind of overall pick. Oh, yes, it is. Yes, sir. It's included in that. Yeah. So that's not something that...

Okay. The concept of pulling an RFP, approaching these folks about some of these options for getting at some of the things that you said, and I guess there are probably some real practical pieces to this too, right? Because of that And those cost driver pieces of it, you're at, significant portion of this is chronic, chronic or critical, right? 60% of the cost associated with things.

Right, I know, right. But it lends itself to some of these programs, right, in terms of just... It could, yes, sir. If you're on the same type of, you know, prescription stuff, being able to extract discounts off of that, or material cost in it, right? So I guess my question is, how quickly can we get this out? And let's say we find something, and we... see that there are benefits to that. How do we, when can those potentially be realized and can there be some adjustment midstream or is this a future look kind of thing that only gonna come in in 2027.

Okay, I guess maybe I'm going to answer my question. If we do this, we run it, we implement something, let's say, you know, in the first quarter. Right? We start to see some degree of benefit from that.

Do we need Amana to answer that? I mean, do we need Anthem to answer that question?

That's our decision, right? I think that's our decision. We're controlling that cost. Yeah. Right. Well, I mean, I think we aggressively need to do this. I mean, if I'm looking at that, then I know you highlighted, well, you highlighted clearly the medical trends, you know, that those pharmaceutical costs are pretty persistent, right?

Those are pieces, and if I looked at that, it looked like that's like a 11, 12% trend on pharmaceutical costs, which have been like this too, right? And it seems to be from looking at a lot of these programs that are out there, that's where a lot of times the more quicker realization of cost savings rest. Is that a fair statement?

okay and then like we're you know is there anything in there where like let's say you know that's different like our top 10 20 claims are outsizing sort of impact on cost is that is there anything that's indicative of that in terms of either this year's trend or just historically, right? Are we running where your top 20 claims or something like that overweight kind of the cost driver or no?

Is that what you're asking? Right, but you're going to factor in sort of streamlining that through, right? You're going to say, hey, I had this outlier, but you're going to predict that I have an outlier once every three or four years or something, so I blend that in. I guess what I'm really getting at is like, and this is sort of getting at this RFP thing, right? If you've got, and I think this is where some of these programs are, I think that are out there that are designed to try to get at how do you help fund sort of these cat claims, if you will, right? Not only for the employers, but als

Like what would you suggest in terms of level of magnitude?

Or driven by the overall cost? Top 20 claims?

Okay, so that's another piece where I think in a lot of these programs that are out there, I think that there's an opportunity to attack that as well as sort of this prescription piece for folks that are on persistent meds that are predictable. So I guess that would be my ask, as long as can we get that stuff out there as quick as possible so we can start to evaluate it.

was promised I get the actuarial piece of it and all that but you know just you know whether it's a you know right small adjustment right you know versus a large adjustment kind of thing until you get something that bears out but I think if we learn something given the magnitude of these jobs it's something that potentially that we've not done before but I think that we should consider if we still see that because as I understand it too some of these things they require, in order to realize the savings, they do require participation from, for the participants, right? To enroll in things like m

Thank you, Chairman. Did you all say someone from Anthem was here? Okay. Out of curiosity and for the listening public, what was the total corporate net income? Does anybody from Anthem know that for 2025? What was the question? What was the total corporate net income for Anthem for the year 2025? Can anybody answer that?

And where are they? They're right here. Okay, y'all sitting far away.

Can y'all, can somebody answer that? Can somebody come forward?

Okay, thank you for being here. I was just wondering.

Okay, thank you for giving me that information. I am very concerned about the Anthem increase and its impact. You're talking about 19% this year and nearly 25% in two years. For me, as a legislator sitting here, I have to think about the employees. I have to think about their families. I have to think about the fact that there's a rising housing cost. There's rising food costs. There's rising costs when it comes to educating our children. There's a rising cost with everything. So I get it. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you what concerns me about this. And it's not just Anthem. It's the wh

Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Barrett.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, for the most part, agree with everything my colleagues have said, and in particular, Madam Vice Chair, I completely agree with you. I have some questions, for starters. You know, and this is really directed to you, Ray, or to county management, but you know, this timeline that we have every year is And Commissioner Arrington brought it up. You know, we get a presentation of the proposed rates a couple of days a week before this meeting. And we are informed that we essentially have no choice but to accept what is being put in front of us. Because if we don't, we will

Yeah, I mean, I think we need to have an official policy that this comes earlier so that we do have the opportunity to push back. You know, this is...

Is it... Is it find a better provider that's not going to double, you know, give us a 19.1% increase? Right. I mean, we need some competition here. Right. And we don't even have time to demand that. Right. You know... So let me ask you just a little bit further about the timeline here because we are now, you know, September 16th. Right. I just saw an email that said open enrollment starts in like two weeks or something. Is that correct? What is the legal requirement for open enrollment time period?

Okay, so right now, open enrollment would go from the end of this month through, when does it end?

October 9th. So they have, people have two weeks basically or something like that.

Well, so what can be done to expedite? Cause it sounds like what we're really saying is there's a long administrative time period between, um, when open enrollment ends and the work that has to get done to make sure everybody's on the right plan and has their cards. That seems excessive, that it's gonna take multiple months to get an administrative process done, which I'm sure, and I'm sure there's reasons, and I'm not an expert on how you do your work, but I think, you know, my question would be what can be done to push open enrollment, either start it later or end it later, or something so t

I mean, I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate what you're saying. But at the same time, Anthem has a role. And part of that role is negotiating with the providers. Apparently, they're not doing a great job of that. Just bear with me for a minute. And clearly, because it's page two of your presentation from Siegel, you are laying out a bunch of reasons as to why our healthcare costs have risen. Some of those are the health of the population in the county. The number one thing on here is the first thing, I'm taking them to be in order of importance, that could be wrong. But the first thing

Yeah, well, I go to two of these already, and I'm planning on changing that. Metro Derm, Eye South Partners, which is Georgia Eye Partners, and Steele Dermatology, just to name a few. And I don't know how many of those are, you know, our claims are, I don't know. But I think it's worth taking a pause about the Fulton County situation and to just say about health care in general, private equity is, and maximizing profits, is fine when you're talking about widgets and cars, maybe not even cars, but it's not fine when you're talking about lives. And it's not fine when you're talking about people'

So we're raising taxes, arguably, or we're cutting services in some other arena so that private equity and insurance companies can maximize profits. That's what taxpayers are having to bear. I'm not okay with that. And I'm especially not okay with it when it's double the annual or the national sort of increase of 8.9, whatever it was, 8 to 9% that we're seeing around the country, right, as the rate increase. Like normally I'd be complaining about Kaiser at a 9 point something percent increase, but that is aligned with the market as much as I don't like it. It is what it is. 19.1, not so much.

Thank you, colleagues. Yeah, that number of $5 billion and It basically makes the entire discussion about healthcare costs disingenuous. That's $5 billion after you've paid for all your expenses. After you've paid for the top 200, the top 100, the top 500, it's still $5 billion left. So I don't want to hear about your expenses. I don't want to hear that the costs have gone up. That's irrelevant. You're still making $5 billion a year in profit after everybody's salary is paid for, after the taxes are paid, after everything is done, there's still $5 billion a year. I started out talking about th

Vice Chair, Dr. Rockman, and is Commissioner Thorne, are you still with us?

All right, wanna hear from you. Vice Chair, Dr. Rockman.

Let me be crystal clear because I am the person that often speaks about staying in one's lane. And so I know that you all have been tasked to do something and you came back. with what you thought probably was the best solution with what you had. So let me be crystal clear. I want to know options. I want to know options. And the reason I say I want to know options is because In my almost seven years of being down here, my office gets the calls from everything from housing issues, employment issues, insurance issues, you name it, the advocacy that the Mighty Six has built, we get the calls. That

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add to the crystal clarity here. The options I certainly want to see are not about how we can reduce the level of service for our employees. So to me, the options of making the employees pay more, a higher share of the same dollar amount or the same increase or having employees get less benefit you know higher out of pocket higher deductible that those are not the options that i'm interested in i want to hear options that include better negotiation in 2027 on the uh On the IDRs, I want to hear options that include better negotiations in 2027 for this pla

Commissioner Ellis, then Commissioner Thorne. I'm sorry, you wanted to respond. What?

Just a minute, just a minute, just a minute. Commissioner Ellis? No, she, I think she had one.

I didn't ask a question, so I'm not inviting Tom, thank you.

Okay, all right. Going back to slide two.

Yes, go to slide two. One, two. Hold on. That ain't slide two of mine. What page? I thought it was slide two. It's the one that says overview of county health care plans.

Yeah, the real page two, I guess. All right, so on this here, on this slide here, can you walk me through, and let's just take, on the total plan cost number for 2027. Can you walk me through the amounts, attributable, estimated amounts, because these are estimated based upon who's enrolled and what plan and all that sort of stuff too, right? Correct. Give me the estimated amounts by provider and the total medical and pharmacy costs. These are roll-ups, so just give me the breakout by provider. Okay.

How long would it take to get that? We can do that. No, I mean, can we do it like now? I'll tell you why I'm asking this question. If we're going to get to some sort of potential resolution today, I need to know an answer to that. I agree.

The pick in terms of the price increase. This is partly a choice by us that's informed by both claims experience as well as our cost of administration. that we pay to the providers, correct? It's those two components.

I got that right. Right, okay, okay. And that's gonna be my follow-up question is, within that 122, how much of that's to Anthem? in Humana and et cetera, right, Kaiser? Kaiser, yes, sir. And what portion of that is attributable to administration and what portion of that's attributable to payout to providers, et cetera? You understand what I'm saying?

The claims. For the claims, right? Yeah, Anthem side versus Kaiser side. So administration versus claims, right? Yes, we can get that data. So claims expense versus other. So how difficult would it be to apportion that out and provide that?

They might have it together after lunch?

Is that a yes? That's a yes. Okay, I'm gonna propose a motion to hold on this so we can come back and potentially get that information.

Okay, yes sir. All right, there's a motion to hold, and I'll second the motion to hold. We wanna hear from Commissioner Thorne. Commissioner Thorne, can you hear us?

You have the floor. The motion on the floor now is to hold, but I'm interested in your comments.

okay um i concur with a lot of my colleagues i feel like i don't have a choice but to rubber stamp as well um so but given that you were going to suggest that we raise the deductible for the pos what is the current deductible for the hsa plan for anthem

Okay, and then what's the maximum for the HSA out-of-pocket maximum?

So if we raise it from 2,000, I mean, if we raise it to 4,000, if you do the raise from 2 to 4 to 3 to 6 to 4 to 8 for families, will that still keep the POS as the lower plan? Because most people do the HSA because you have that health savings account, and if you raise that, that's significantly high, the POS, won't it be comparable, or getting close to comparable, there won't be much differentiation?

Okay. Okay. Then I had a question, too. If you go back to, or it was mentioned that 2.3% of our employees have 51% of our spend. And that there is a stop loss at $300,000 that we could implement.

Okay, okay. It just seems like there should be some kind of legislation in because to have 2.3% of your population driving a majority of your healthcare costs, it just seems like there would be some other plan, high catastrophic or something that you could put them on. I don't know, I'm not an expert, you're the expert in this, but is there something legislatively we should be urging to get done or advocate for?

I'm sorry, you said you did the RFPE two years ago. We did it in 2024. I remember that.

And then if I remember correctly, it was mentioned that Kaiser hasn't gone up significant, but they did go up 9.6%. But if I remember correctly, last year they had a significant increase in their rate.

Okay, but we... we can support this increase. We weren't able to get it down.

I also agree with Commissioner Barrett and her concerns with the private equity, just bringing awareness. I don't know if we should do an awareness campaign. I mean, not only is it driving up our costs, but I think maybe one of my doctors is in those groups, and now something that would take one visit is taking multiple visits. And that way they can charge me the fees for coming back for another visit. when they could do the blood work for everything all at once. Instead, I'm having to go to the doctor three times just for, and I'm a healthy person. I have just go for health checks. So I think

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Harrington.

I think Commissioner Ellis' point is right on point. His question is asking about what are those fees and how much is going because that really drives it. But I guess the other question I have is are there Does Anthem contribute to employee wellness? Will you all come have a fair for us? Is there a percentage of the fee that comes back to help with employee health and wellness? Yes, we've got an aging population. Yes, we have maybe a population that needs more service, right? Where does Anthem, what role does Anthem play in helping educate and provide health and wellness to Fulton County emplo

Yeah, I'm not talking about does Fulton County have a health fair? I'm talking about how much money out of what Anthem is getting are they putting back? How much are they making sure comes back to the employees in health and education? I'm not talking about Fulton County. I want to hear from Anthem.

Do not use. Good Lord. We got 600. They trying to save 600,000 by going up on POS. I don't understand how there could be some unused funds and a rollover. Thank you. Is that number a percentage? Thank you for that. And I think that goes to Commissioner Ellis' question is what is that fee, right? How much is Anthem actually getting versus how much is going out, right? But is that a percentage? How is that number derived? Is that number going up by 20%?

Yeah, look, I mean, it got to make sense. We got to make it make sense. Yeah. Right? I mean, we can't. It doesn't make sense for y'all to ask us to go up by 20% and y'all not going to join us. And I think, again, that goes to Commissioner Ellis' point. Hopefully we'll get that information because we want to be partners too. We want to be good partners. We appreciate everything that you guys are doing. And we don't want to put an unfair burden on you guys. But when we hear, hey, there's 20% going up, the cap is doubling. The cap is going up 100%. and the cost is going up 20%. Good Lord have mer

Thank you. All right, Commissioner Ellis.

Yeah, I'm glad Commissioner Harrington raised that piece about the 600,000 or whatever. I mean, there should be some discussion of potentially that just gets rolled into a reduction of premiums. So anyway, I'll leave it. But here's what I'm looking for when we come back. I'm looking for what's the dollar adjustment that would be required for the Anthem plans as a whole to have no more than the other average increases that we're seeing, let's say on the Kaiser side, let's say 9.7%, whatever the number was.

Quantify that number. We can do that. And what that looks like on both, and have some discussions about, you know, some sharing in that, what that, you know, how we might get to that number.

I'm not talking about sharing between us and the participant. I'm talking about between us and Anthem. I got you. That's what I'm talking about. So if you could have a little bit of discussion on that, come back with some numbers. Y'all can give us a high sign when you're ready to talk about it. But that's what I'm interested in hearing.

All right, Commissioner Barrett, the motion on the floor is to hold.

I'll be quick, just two more things. We keep talking about this administrative fee as if it's like putting stamps on envelopes. Can you please, Ray, you can explain what is it we're paying for in the administration fee?

Just claims handling. So you're saying the plans themselves, there's no responsibility on Anthem's part for negotiating rates?

So I don't really want a whole long thing. I'm not just asking you, Ray. I don't need everybody to talk. I just want to understand, because I don't want to drag this out too much longer, but I just want to understand whose responsibility it is to negotiate the various rates and to fight the... you know, the dispute resolutions and to therefore help bring our costs down. I get that we can't change the health of our, directly in this moment, change the health of our employees, our experience, but... Is it your job right to... No, it is Anthem.

Okay, thank you for that. And I also want to say, if we don't push back... We, elected officials here and in any other municipality or county or whatever, nobody will. And we have to push back on companies who are maximizing profits on the backs of our taxpayers and our employees, including the private equity health care providers. I'll just say for myself, if we end up having to inform people about who these private equity, and again, my Google is not a fair representation, but if we need to, we know who's in our network. We know who's in network. We should know who they are and how they're o

In closing, County Manager, you took my words right out of my mouth. That's what I was going to ask about utilization. But I think this board as a whole has been crystal clear on what the directive is, what we want you to do. I just wanted to end by saying I appreciate Anthem being here. I appreciate you all listening to us as legislators, because ultimately we have to make the decisions that affect the Fulton County employees. And I just want to reiterate, I'm real big on people staying in their lanes. So I get it. I understand. I just want to make sure that we have exhausted any other option

All right, the motion on the floor is to hold all of these items that are dealing with healthcare until after lunch. Let me add two comments here. I would be interested in knowing what our surrounding, our sister counties are doing. And I'm sure that you have that information, what our sister counties are doing. That's number one. And number two, on the stop loss, I'm a big proponent of the stop loss. And I think you said that to implement the stop loss, would only be about $500,000, is that correct?

Okay, we'll need some discussion on stop loss, because I am a big proponent of stop loss, and I think we're missing the boat. You don't have to answer, I want y'all to talk about it while you're...

But there's still benefit in stop loss. And I think you and I agree upon that. Huge benefit in stop loss. So please discuss that while you're deliberating. All right. Let's dispose of the motion to hold this item until after lunch and executive session.

All right, now quickly on the Health and Human Services, those next nine items are all renewing existing contracts. You can take all of those and dispose of those unless you want to hold out any more. Yeah, right now. Yeah. On page seven, those next nine items, and I'd like, if there are no objections, you can take all. No, no, not the health care. These are all public works. All public works. Okay. Except that the first one, 260583, that should read in an amount not to exceed. We need to add the word not, not to exceed. Yeah.

All right, I'll entertain a motion to sound the clerk.

All right, a motion to approve of all nine of those with the one amendment. by Vice Chair Abdul-Rahman, seconded by Commissioner Ellis.

Chair, I think it was also your amendment to the first one, the not to exceed, both of those amendments. Correct.

All right, now I'll entertain a motion to recess for lunch and executive session, where we may take up items of real estate, litigation and personnel.

This is the signing of our cheese floss agreement. This is the third of five-year agreement and this one will amount to some right under 700 million dollars to be used for transportation purposes for our 15 cities.

Once again, another great day in Fulton County, Georgia.

This is where all of our CFS awards recipients are getting together. This is a great group of artists who we gave grants to. We don't usually get to mix with each other, so we get to celebrate together that they are winners of our arts grants and just celebrate the arts in Fulton County.

We love this because it gets us in one place and people who don't necessarily look like each other, who don't necessarily see each other have one common goal and that's to make sure that arts and culture survive. It is a premier event every year. I love it because it really shows you what I call the people that are at the street level making sure that the arts and culture is getting to all areas of Fulton County.

This is where all of our CFS awards recipients are getting together. This is a great group of artists who we gave grants to. We don't usually get to mix with each other, so we get to celebrate together that they are winners of our arts grants and just celebrate the arts in Fulton County.

We love this because it gets us in one place and people who don't necessarily look like each other who don't necessarily see each other have one common goal and that's to make sure that arts and culture survive it is a premier event every year i love it because it really shows you what i call the people that are at the street level making sure that the arts and culture is getting to all areas of fulton county

All right, without objection, we will resume the regular order of business. Madam County Attorney, items from executive session?

We have a motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, seconded by Commissioner Arrington.

Are there questions? Commissioner Barrett, Commissioner Errington.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we talked about getting to the reasons for the separations. I know we had to get some time. to pass to get some of this back? Where are we on that?

And just remind me, did we add something to the exit process for ongoing where people are just answering that question at the time of their exit as opposed to having to go back?

Is that effective? I mean, I'm just wondering, like, if they sent me a link and I didn't have to do it and I'm quitting, like, why would I do it?

Totally agree with that point. I'm just wondering if there's, is there any way that would be even more likely to net results? And is that netting results, I guess, is the question.

Commissioner Arrington. Thank you. Thank you. I'm looking at this chart, it says goal of 200 hires in 2026. And then it shows 33% of goal. Help me out with my memory. Was it a goal of 200 new hires or just a goal of 200 hires?

Okay. I just want to make sure that we're being fair. The goal is net? I stand corrected, Commissioner. Okay, all right. So let's just make sure we clean that up, right, on the slides going forward. Because if it's 200 hires and you got 114 plus 60, then he's at 174. And I'm just trying to keep track of it. So if it's net, that's fine. We just need to define it as net. and not say 200 or higher so to leave any confusion in there, right?

Okay, thank you. Yes, okay, so the 114, he gets another 10 or 12 this month. You said there's another 12 potentially coming in?

So that gets them up to 126. And then roughly 20 a month, you're saying, are coming in now?

Net new 15 per month. you know, that's not bad on the number of hires, but because of attrition, the net number is certainly subtracted from that, so. All right, I just wanted to make sure that we were clear in talking apples to apples and oranges to oranges. And then is the wall hires included in that net new?

All right, but that's confusing to see both of those charts up there without any indication that one is a subset of the other. And then if you're going to have this second chart and say 60 new hires from Walls, then I need to know the net new hires from Walls. Because otherwise, if it's only 66 net new hires and Walls got 60 of them, then there's only six from the Sheriff's Office. And so we need a full picture. I don't think it's fair to show net new hires on one and not the other, right? Okay. What's the net new hires for walls?

Yeah, I just think we need consistency in both of those charts. I don't think it's fair to show net on one and not show net on the other so we have a true apples to apples comparison, right? Okay. Otherwise, the full 60 could be attributed to Walls and only six to the share. Okay. Where maybe Walls' net number might be 30 or 20, right?

Okay, yeah. Or maybe just put them on separate pages. I think maybe what's confusing is seeing them together, but I think they still need to have the true apple to apple comparison. Because I was going to add the 66 plus the 60 and say that's 120 and say that's more than 33%. because of the way you have it laid out here on the slide.

Sorry, one more question. So I think the information I would want out of that little bit of conversation is just, overall, are the Walls new hires staying? Because we won't really have a good picture of that, because I'm assuming that some of the separation is from, you know, could be people who have been with us for years that are separating, correct?

Yeah, so it's not sort of really apples and apples at this point, because some of the walls people have only been there three months. We don't know if they're going to last six months or 13 years at this point, right? The other question I had before that whole conversation was just about the standard sort of expectation, percentage, goal of what is like a normal percentage of separation that we would expect, because this is You know, it's not 50%, but it's high compared to hires. So like, is 48 people leaving over the course of this many months sort of normal for an organization of this size t

Well, I didn't mean that. I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir. I really just meant more like how does that compare to other sheriff's? offices or sheriff's departments across Georgia, across the country, because you can't really compare it to, you know, finance, right, like another department that's completely different, but I just, I think that my reason in asking is there's some normal, there's some amount of separation that we would expect that is normal, so we don't, the goal is not to get it to no separation, that's unrealistic, people move on, right, but so what is a normal, so when we're pl

And obviously this all part and parcel of my original set of questions, which was about asking for the surveys and all that, because if we have a better idea of why people are leaving, then we have a better way to address whatever the issues might be if we can find some patterns. Thank you.

No problem. All right, excuse me, Commissioner Ellis.

I just want to sum up this. So our benchmark is 200 net new hires. That's what we established up front. That's what the plan was built on, right? And as of September 14, 2026, we are at 33% of that goal.

All right, Commissioner Ellis. Commissioner Harrington.

So thank you. you know i see the stand up the diversion hub um and i know that this is a an additional or last leg thing as you described it um i just i just think we ought to be careful we you know we've already got pre-arrest diversion we got the diversion center at the atlanta thing and when we say We just need to be careful about the public impact that we're standing up diversion, and we've already got two fully functioning diversion programs, right? Additionally, I know Commissioner Barrett is going to hate to hear this. The automated way instead of the manual way to pull all that informa

Yes. I just have a quick question. In the automated text reminders, Is there an ability that people could subscribe on their own to those reminders? Because I know people who post bond for people, you know, they would like to be reminded so that they can ensure that that person gets there for their appearance. And you know, considering that a lot of these people may have mental health issues or other issues, it might be good if people can, other people can get these text reminders, especially too, since, you know, appearance dates might change last minute or the court's closed or something hap

And I imagine when it comes to using AI, which Commissioner Arrington, I'm fully behind you on AI usage, that it is a new tool and we must be using it. But we don't have official policy yet. So I'd hate for in our court system for AI to be pulling from databases that shouldn't be released. We need to have some kind of policy in place if we're using AI. especially in the court system.

Yeah, that's real easy to do. It's called a prompt. You get the instructions, prompt instructions, and you exclude anything that needs to be excluded. So that's real easy to do.

Sometimes it's hard to exclude it. from certain, pooling from certain areas, so you need a closed AI system. And I don't know if we have that, if Tyler's able to provide that, but you don't want it pooling from some database outside of Fulton County.

Oh no, I mean, if we're texting the inmates, it should be the inmate database that the sheriff has. Right, but I don't even know, I mean, I guess they have one, they got everybody in the computer, but yeah, no, it wouldn't be pulling from, I don't know why we would pull from any outside database to know who we have in our jail. It'd be Odyssey, Tyler.

If it's just merging a simple, if it's just merging a simple database into the system, it should be straightforward if Tyler can provide it. Just a couple lines of code to pull it into that text system.

Yeah, I mean, if we're using Tyler's database, that ought to make it real easy.

I did, I thought about the other thing. The monthly review of unindicted cases with bonds under 10,000. It'd be great if we could get, what is that number, right? And get updates on that monthly number. Because we get constituents coming in here all the time saying, there are all these people in there with these bonds. And so what is that number on a monthly basis? What was it last month? What was it the month before that? Some ongoing tally. of those numbers?

Yeah, I think it's important to dispel the rumors that there are 50% of the people in the jail being held for bonds under $10,000. And, you know, it's important for us to get that information out and report.

Yeah, hold on. Mr. Turner, are y'all ready? Mr. Chair. Yes.

Can we take care of the millage rate before we get to that? What? Will we be able to take care of the millage rate before we get to that? I know all this is important, but there's one other one that's been waiting longer than that.

Where is it? That's right. 594. We got two before that. It's right after this. Okay.

All right. The motion to approve by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Barrett.

All right, the motion on the floor is to approve by Commissioner Ellis and I seconded that motion. Commissioner Ellis, you have the floor.

Yeah, I would comment just on the calendar. I would just, I personally like to see us stick to the original one and get it done. And hopefully some of the other jurisdictions will move ahead and get theirs done and we'll all be able to do it sooner.

That would mean what date, the final date?

Final public hearing and approval on the 7th.

That would be my personal preference. I mean, you know, we're already behind. Let's get it done. Give people certainty, at least on our portions. The long report is no later than the second meeting in January. Is that right? I guess so. This is about the millage rate. Right. That would be my personal view, that we just go ahead and proceed down the original path. If it doesn't work out, that all the bills can go out, whatever, so be it. We got our portion done and we don't run into any sort of other unforeseen consequences or other issues that we hadn't contemplated. Lord knows this thing's be

So at this point in time last year, you would have given us a number of 51.4, probably, right?

So anyway, but just my point asking it is, Overall, the net digest growth is 4.59%, right? Depending upon that number or whatever it is, if it's 54.4, that growth in the tax allocation district's like 25%?

So just to note, these are where a lot of these You know, commercial properties where people were bringing up, data centers, et cetera, were in these jurisdictions, in these tax allocation districts, plus other stuff that's going on. So I just think that's worth calling out. Certainly note the difference. Had that money, it would certainly help with a health increase. All right. Commissioner Barrett.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to know if we, I mean, I know that you provided the mid-year projections and all of that. I just wondered if we were going to go over the sort of mid-year financials at any point and, or the, you know, 2026 projected in terms of where the underruns are coming from. And I guess what the intention is there.

I mean, that's certainly something I would like to see. I think, you know, just so as we move into the budgeting season for 2027, it would be helpful to know how we how we did so far this year and how we expect to do through the end of the year. I don't know if that's enough, but I would like to see that.

All right. Commissioner Ellis. If I'm wrong, but you did provide this in a memo to us.

Right, so the mid-year information is we do have it in this.

Yeah, sorry, but just to clarify, I'm asking that it be presented publicly so that everyone is on the same page and that the public understands and sees and all of that.

All right, any other questions or comments? Anything else for the CFO? Commissioner Thorne, are you with us?

Yes, I have a question. So you're saying that you don't want to adopt the rollback rate because you think we'll need the additional $2 million moving forward based on mid-year review. Is that correct, Madam CFO?

All right, other questions or comments? Hearing none, the motion on the floor is to approve. Motion to approve by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Pitts.

Add to 8.87. Add to 8.87. And then schedule to proceed as originally noted. What are we authorizing in terms of the schedule?

Could I make one additional comment? Yes.

Okay, so in the event that we do, if this passes and we hold a flat millage rate, there's been so much confusion about the TCO, the due dates, all of that. I just think this would be less confusion by just holding it flat versus having to send out another bill collection or anything like that because it's been such a failure not having the digest in a timely manner. And I think the earlier we kind of finalize it and said it will set an example for the other taxing jurisdictions to go ahead and get theirs settled as well. to prevent and clear up all this. And I don't know when the due dates wou

Yes, so basically people would be paying their tax bill, their 2026 tax bill in 2027.

All right, Commissioner Ellis? All right, Commissioner Arrington?

I want to call for division on that. I like the rate of 8.87. I actually like go ahead and getting the money in. I just don't know the continuity with the cities or the tax commissioner. I'm worried about, I want to get the money in as soon as we can. So I agree with Commissioner Ellis on trying to get that done. And if it can still be done, then that makes sense. But I don't want to Bind us to that and then it costs twice as much for him to send out second tax bills and- He's not going to do it.

He's going to send out one, but we may have our- Well, I'm fine with it. I just want more flexibility. If we can get it done on the original timeline, then let's do it, right? But I don't want to be completely bound by that and I want to separate that from the millage rate. I'm still leaning your way. I just, I don't want to tie our hands unnecessarily if we don't have to.

So is there a way to accomplish due on what, the October 7th, but no later than? Is that possible, Madam CFO? I'm fine with that.

So then I will draw my division because basically what she's saying is we could go ahead and do ours and it'll catch up when it catches up. So then I'm fine.

Now I'm confused. I'm sorry. I missed the advantage then of doing it right away. Is there an advantage to us in doing it right away? Maybe I'm confused versus doing the alternate schedule.

Okay, my original question was just to the clerk's office. Do we confirm quorum for the special call already? Okay, because I know I can't be there for one of the two, so I just wanted to make sure.

Okay, thanks. Okay, everybody's clear? Everybody's in agreement? All right, I'd appreciate your affirmative vote here. The motion on the floor is to approve.

Do we have a printout of anything? I'm sorry, sir? We have a printout. We didn't print these, did we?

Mr. Attorney, could you speak up a little bit, I'm sure. Yeah.

So how much time would it take for you to run the numbers on these various options?

I understand that, but how much time would it take?

I mean, if you put all hands on deck, you know, at Siegel and at Anthem.

Okay, so if I were in your shoes, I would, I think you've heard the various comments from the board members who are here. I would be concerned if I were in your shoes, I'd have all hands on deck trying to answer these questions. In fact, I don't even, I ask the question about what are our surrounding, our sister counties doing? I don't see that addressed.

So Segal does not work with any of our surrounding counties?

Cobb County, Gwinnett County, Clayton County, Douglas County, none of those.

Y'all had a chart yesterday that y'all showed me.

Well, it would seem to me a logical step would be, Mr. Turner, for us to know how we look compared to the other six or seven counties.

I don't know, maybe he wants 2027. I think he just wanted to see the numbers that y'all showed me yesterday from the different, jurisdictions, DeKalb, Cobb, Marta, y'all showed me like seven to 10 different jurisdictions.

I want both. I need something to, I don't know whether we are, this is in line or not in line.

I understand that. And we don't have it either, right, Mr. Turner?

Okay, I want to get back to that stop loss too. Commissioner Ellis, because that's not addressed, and we talked about that in our private conversation that we had. Not private, but when we met in my office, put it that way. Commissioner Ellis?

Personally, I'm prepared to act today on limiting something to a 10% premium increase. I am prepared to act today with a limitation to a 10% increase on these Anthem self-insured plans with the following caveats. that we do this RFP that we're talking about post-haste relative to these providers that are gonna come in and look at ways to bring our prescription costs down and deal with these high-cost claims. With the idea that we're gonna find this $4.6 million through that process. Okay, that becomes a goal, not some sort of abstract idea. And it gets us post haste into going down this path.

Okay. When will we have, when could we get that information? We have a commitment from Anthem, when you can get a response on that?

Number four is a response from Anthem regarding how soon that they could confirm what type of potential discount they could provide on the incurred negotiated claims, basically their administrative costs.

Excellent, what is that? And then, the narrowing of network options and all that sort of stuff, that's gonna take a little bit of time to frame that out and then quantify what an impact was, so we might not have that. And then, but that could be done during the course of a plan year, those changes could be made, correct? Okay, and then, I'm not sure I understand the last one,

I'm not really sure. We're just talking about like we wouldn't offer one of these this year? For 2027. For 2027.

I mean, we have a, we just, you said you're gonna have this information, response back from Anthem on Friday. Right. Regarding that, it's fully insured stuff, narrowing the network options on the other, May take some time, high degree of certainty around them, being able to project out what you might save and all that sort of stuff may be difficult. But we could definitely go down the path of doing this RFP on this other thing, get that out there, right? We have a special called meeting on what date?

I mean, is there anything that would prevent us from adding this on to that, to solely address this at that meeting?

So you're going to have the information by the 18th or the 25th? For Anthem.

No, no, no, no, no. For the discount piece. Are you talking about the 18th or the 25th? I guess there's a question for. The 25th. And our meeting is scheduled for the 30th. Okay. I don't know. I just opened it up for discussion. I mean, I'm. you know, we could approve something with a contingency in it and ask for a comeback and revisit it or, you know, we just hold it till we got that information. What does that do to our schedule and all that sort of stuff?

Commissioner Harrington. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis. You know, I could live with the 10% premium increase The question is, who's paying the difference? Under the plan that was proposed this morning, that 4.6 million would not have been coming from county funds or from the operating budget. It would have been made up by the POS employees by the raise in the cap. By doubling the cap in those POS employees. Correct. I thought that was only 600,000. I didn't know it was 4.6 million.

So I'd rather take some time to get this right rather than to try to rush something now. Yes, sir. But what I'm looking at, and thank you, I'm glad Commissioner Ellis asked for this sheet, because what I see on here is that the HMO plan actually cost the county more than the POS plan.

Well, POS is 30.8 million and HMO is 32.8 million. And of that, for POS, the county contributes 25.4 and the employees contribute 5.5. But for HMO, the plan is 28 million and employees only increase 4.8 million. I'm so glad I pushed back on that POS increase. I mean, this is the type of information.

Okay, we'll add a column to this before we come back to the next meeting. And the other thing that I didn't, I think Commissioner Ellis asked for that I didn't see as part of this, is what is the amount of that administrative fee?

All right, and then I also didn't see my 20% on top of that 600. So yeah, I'd rather take some time to get this right. I do not, me personally, I do not wanna limit anyone's healthcare options. I'm not gonna support limiting anyone's healthcare options. I'm not gonna support narrowing the network options. I'm not gonna support eliminating one of the plans. I want people to have the healthcare options that they have now and that are available. I want them to have that. And again, 10% increase is a lot better than a 20% increase, so I'm happy to maybe support that. The question is, where does th

No, I get it, but that, That's a burden on the operating budget that was not envisioned under your first recommendation, right? No, it was not. Yeah, your first recommendation wasn't adding another $4.6 million to the operating budget. So I'd rather take a little more time to maybe try to find another way. that doesn't add that $4.6 million to the operating budget?

uh and you know i've this i found this email from yesterday and i think that cap was um fulton county was two thousand but then city of atlanta was twenty five hundred and seventy five hundred in network and four thousand and twelve thousand out of network and then cobb was twenty five hundred and $5,000 on their cap in-network and $4750 and $14,000 out-of-network. The cab was $4,500 and $9,000 cap in-network and $7,515 out-of-network. So, you know, those are the type of numbers that I think help sell the original plan better. uh without adding that burden on to the budget but again for for me

You know, to that point, on page 16, you talk, the county plans to explore options to impact future health plan costs, grants, and or non-profit subsidies for high-cost claimants and also federal and or state subsidies.

Some non-profits, some deep pocket folk, all of that crowd make up that 4.6. Commissioner Barrett.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I just want to make sure I understand the numbers here. On this top bullet where you're saying limit us to a 10% increase, the original total dollar amount of increase cost was 13.2 million of all the plans, is that correct? All the plans, right. Right, and that was with the 19.1%, or was that with the 20%?

Well, so hold on a second. Let me ask my question. So if we decrease the premium increase from the 19.1 to the 10%, What is the total budget addition for healthcare in 2027 as proposed in this top line?

Sorry, I don't think you're understanding my question. Okay. All plans, our cost is 13.2 million as proposed before we had this discussion. The increase in Kaiser, Anthem, all the plans, the decreases in the other ones, our net increase to the county was 13.2. Correct. With this decrease, put aside the 4.6 in risk exposure right now, just lowering the 19.1 to 10% and including all of the other things we're about to agree on, Humana and whoever else. Correct. What is the total dollars that we are going to have to spend in addition in 2027 than we spent over 2026? It was 13.2. What is it now?

And explain the third party RFP. They're just people that are negotiating it down further. Explain that again.

Okay, I hear you. I feel like it's very difficult to say yes to part of this when we don't know, part one of this, if we don't know if part two is going to come through. And I still think from just a broader healthcare in America is the pits perspective. The people in the equation who are the cause don't ever pay the price. There's no pushback on these private equity firms that own the medical practices. There's no pushback on the pharmaceutical companies that are charging a million dollars for one treatment of a drug. I get R&D and all the excuses, but at the end of the day, We, the taxpayers

I've said my piece. I mean, I just couldn't proceed, give us some direction about which way we want to go. Certainly, I mean, I guess there's no harm in approving all these other things that there is no disagreement on.

I wouldn't think so. And then there, someone mentioned a, approving the 10% contingent upon, what was that, you, Commissioner Harrington?

That was me. Commissioner Ellis. But that didn't seem to be the will of the other folks.

Yeah, I'm kind of like Commissioner Barrett. I hate to do that without knowing what the replacement, I'd rather just hold and approve the other ones and see if we can get that 20% on top of that 600.

Yes, Commissioner Barrett, not Barrett, Commissioner Thorne, you have the floor.

When you say, You know, equate to a projected $4.6 million in claims cost exposure. How close have your projections been in previous years? Or do you have that information?

And I'm also in agreement. I don't want to limit the plans. I think people who are on the POS plan, probably it's more expensive because they get that plan because they know they're going to have to visit the doctor quite often. So that's kind of a group of people that would gravitate toward that plan. And I'd like to keep the option open to them. Um, they may, They mentioned, Anthem mentioned they had 600,000 left over from last year. Maybe they could just put that towards our budget. I'm also aware of a meeting that the county has had with one of these third-party vendors that claims they ca

Okay, yeah, maybe in this next two weeks, I'll look into that. If Madam County Attorney can help me look into what would be the pros and cons of allowing a free pilot program, no-cost pilot program to be run to see if we really do save going with these third-party vendors or not. But I don't know why we haven't been looking at these all along if we're aware that they're there. Because certainly, if we can trim costs anywhere, Let's pursue all avenues for trimming costs. With that being said, I'm totally good with waiting, just putting a hold on it. It sounds like we're not going to be able to

All right, the motion on the floor is to hold until what date?

September 30th. All right, Commissioner Barrett, on the motion to hold.

Just a procedural question for, I don't know, y'all. Does it benefit us to approve the other ones now, or does it not matter if we're not doing them all in terms of the other companies' rates? Yeah.

Well, wait a minute. So what's the negative in holding everything until that date?

But other than that, what are the negatives?

So then I'd like to make a substitute motion to approve all of the rates as presented except Anthems. Does that work?

Okay, hold it. It sounds like division, Mr. Yeah. The first motion that was properly made and seconded was to hold until, what's the date?

Until the September 30th meeting. And I would say, I would second Commissioner Thorns. I can't be here for the early part of the meeting on the 10th or the 30th either, so that's not ideal for me, but... I'd like to hear what everybody has to say on the 30th, but I have another commitment. But that's neither here nor there. The point is for today. I mean, I think if we, so her motion to hold, I think, can we just remove that or how do we do that? Can we, do we need to dispose of it? What are we doing?

Well, I think by seconding the substitute, she already did.

Mr. Chair, I yield to you, but I think by her seconding Dana's motion, she virtually withdrew her motion. Which really is nothing but division of 26-0596, which called for approval of premium rates for medical and pharmacy, dental and vision plans. And I think we're just taking out the medical.

We're taking out everything to do. Everything on the Anthem side is out. Everything else is to be approved. That's what I'm saying. Everything Anthem is on hold. All the other companies, we can go ahead.

All right, is that what? That's what happens when you go up 20%. If it had been 10%, it could have got approved today.

All right, is everybody okay with that? I'm not, but I can support it. I'd rather hold everything until we got all the information, but if it's the will to.

I think it just helps our staff administratively to get started on the rest.

They got to work one time a year and this is it. That's not true. They work all year round.

I can go either way. It doesn't matter. I can hold it all or approve everything but anthem.

I'd like to go ahead and help the staff and get everything else approved as my motion, as I made the motion.

All right, let's vote on that. To approve.

In essence, everything but Anthem today. I'll support it, but my heart's not in it because none of us are overworked. That's the motion on the floor.

Commissioner Thorne. What? Thorne, Commissioner Thorne. She said yeah, I thought.

One, two, three, that's right. Missed these two, yeah. She's gone. Okay.

So procedurally we need to do 580 and those two, right?

We're still not to the action items yet.

All right, motion to, that is- With Humana. 0580. Sounded, Madam Clerk, again.

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

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

So we need to bifurcate 0582 to only include just the non-anthem plans, correct? This is for the administration piece. Yes. For division.

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Ellis is a second. Seconded by Commissioner Barrett. Seconded.

Is there a motion? Motion to approve by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Barrett.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair. Yes, you have the floor, Commissioner. Yeah, I'd just like to request consideration as we move to the commissioner's action items that we move up and have heard first, 260606, which is an item related to, that I'm also have been working with a couple of members from our youth commission. and they've been waiting patiently up here and wanted to allow them to be part of this. And then before we went on to get into these other discussion items, which may take a little bit longer.

All right, without objection. Sound it, Madam Clerk.

be real brief in sort of introducing this. Kratom, those who are familiar with it, it's a natural leaf, but it's been modified synthetically and it's being sold in a lot of high potency, you know, substances that are being promoted as supplements and other types of things, many times in gas stores, vape shops, et cetera, with a lot of time for folks to have no idea what's in it. It's become sort of a gateway for folks who previously were Addicted to opioids and now we're addicted to this stuff. There have been a lot of unfortunate things that have happened from a medical standpoint in terms of

Yeah, thank you both. We really appreciate it and bringing this forward. And I hope we could have unanimous passage on this. And with this urgent resolution, we would present this and share this with the House Committee that's meeting on the subject right now.

All right. Any other comments or questions? All right. Thank you all very much. The motion on the floor is to approve by Commissioner Arrington, seconded by Commissioner Ellis.

i'm sorry colleagues i would just uh ask for your support on this this is really an urgent resolution um we have all heard about the straight of her moves but i don't know if we are thinking about the daily impact that the disruption in the supply chain has had my understanding is that 30 of the world's fertilizers are uh it will not be available and that is going to likely affect the 2027 food supply and so it makes sense for us to get the word out and get as many people building community gardens as possible in advance of that shortage in the supply chain we've had a an ongoing six month dis

Yeah, I have a question about, on page two of the resolution, there's a reference to a 2021 resolution adopted by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners supporting small farms, et cetera, urban agriculture. And I believe it was 21-0779. I don't think I have that in my notes, but I looked it up and it had some similar requests in it asking for the dream to, um, review, uh, county properties that might have, uh, land availability for urban farming or gardens or what have you. And, um, I'm just wondering if that anything netted from that, because there was a, there were now therefore be it reso

Okay. I fully acknowledge that we've done a lot of work on this front, so I just wanted to make sure, because while you're saying that this is an urging, mostly an urging resolution, it does ask county management to sort of prepare some information and do some research. And again, you may already have all this. It may just be sharing with us what you already do. But I just want to make sure we're not duplicating effort that's already been done before I would willing to support it um in in theory i'm all for you know the the theory of this i just don't know if it's necessary um but that's my on

shucking a lot of corn and shelling a lot of peas and watching mom and grandma can a lot of beans and stuff i'm all in support of uh of gardening i just my only my only question commissioner and was just more just the practicality of the time frame and we obviously have a lot of stuff going on right now in terms of budget formation all that sort of stuff and just in section six it talks about a within a 60 days and directly the county manager do certain things just sort of just more just the practicality of being able to drive, bring a lot of that stuff forward. So that was really my only note

You know, I'm flexible. I only got about 90 days left. So 60 days gives me 30 days to get some type of response. But, I mean, I'm flexible. I don't, you know. The main thing, I think, is to—here's the thought. Since it appears that there will be a global supply shortage, food shortage— It doesn't do me or you or any individual any good to have their own garden unless all of our neighbors have it. If there's a food shortage, we're going to need enough food for everyone. So one or two people doing it doesn't do any good. But, you know, I'm certainly flexible. Obviously, the budget, the millage r

Well, I mean, I would ask, I know you got the county manager's name down here, but I have a sense that Dr. Rochelle is going to be the one who's doing the work on this. So maybe between the two of them, I'll just ask them in terms of are you comfortable with being able to respond to that? Yeah, or designate. I mean, you know. I know what you mean. Yeah. But is that...

All right. Fair enough. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Motion to approve by Commissioner Aaron. Yes. Wait, wait. Commissioner Thorne, you have the floor. Sorry.

That's okay. Yeah, I think that resolution that Commissioner Barrett kind of referenced was in regards to the significant huge fertilizer crunch in 2021 and 2022, where USDA says, fertilizer prices were rising in 2021 because of the covid air supply chain problems and then that combined with the really high natural gas prices production constraints in china's fertilizer export restrictions and then in 2022 we went to war with ukraine which even severely caused a severe shortage so i was kind of interested in that resolution that was passed back then and it We just need to move forward with wha

Yeah, I think that's why it mentioned the other one to tie it in and loop it into that effort. But I think we're facing a lot of those same issues now due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and 30% of the world's fertilizer is gonna likely, that means only 70% will be available. So the prices will likely go up on that 70% that's available. So it's just the reincarnation of that and bringing it back fresh to our minds and the public's minds.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, you know, for me, again, like conceptually, I have no problem with us, you know, highlighting the work that we are already doing there and potentially doing some additional public education or what have you. But as written, I think there's a lot in here with the dates and some of the requirements that I'm not particularly comfortable voting yes on right this minute. So I don't know if we want to hold it and have a little bit of a rewrite or wait and see what Dr. Rochelle can come back with in terms of a report and see what's needed. But right now, I'm not supe

So, Dr. Rochelle, since you have to implement, I'm not sure what we are urging you to do that's not already done by that extension program. It's a...

That's fine with me. um whatever is the will of the board um and certainly commissioner barrett if you have changes or edits that you want to make happy to talk with you about those um if if we need to hold it then that's going to give me less than 90 days so that uh but uh happy to accommodate any request, Commissioner Barrett or Chairman Pitts, that you have in regards to this?

No, I don't really have any questions. I just kind of understand the difference. Of course, there's no new requests for funds involved in this.

Vote or hold? Motion on the floor is to approve. There was no official motion to hold.

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Arrington. Commissioner Arrington, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, I hope to get your support on this. We had a chorus of questions commissioners that commented about one of the persons making public comments at the last meeting and mocking persons with disabilities. And so hopefully I can get your support on this. basically just says that if you want to make public comments, those comments should be germane to items on the agenda. I don't believe anyone should be mocking people with disabilities. I don't believe that anyone should be able to call someone out of their name. They should be able to come in, express their opinio

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In theory, I mean, I absolutely agree that some of what we've heard over the last several meetings has been appalling. I'm also not a lawyer and free speech lawyer for sure. So I don't really know what we can officially do. And I do think this is an elegant way to address that. Because if the rules are that the comments have to be germane to the agenda, then that allows the chairman to interrupt and say, please explain how this is germane, and if it's not, then their mic gets turned off, right? I get that. I think my only concern is, If somebody does have something tha

on the um on the agenda you know I'm happy to add the germain to the agenda or uh County Services uh you know county-wide I I think that's a reasonable request right I mean because you're right I mean now yeah I I have no problem with with adding other County Services

So then I'd like to, I mean, I know it's not really time sensitive, although we both have 90 days. But I'd like to just go ahead and make a motion to hold so that we can have some of those changes put in and then revisit it if that works.

That's fine. No objection to that. All right. Substitute motion to hold. And without objection, the author has accepted the suggestion that it be held. Okay.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to do a motion to hold this. I spoke with Commissioner Ellis. I want to work with him on trying to see if we can get it down to one resolution. And so hopefully we can do that. But we've been here long enough today. I'll hold this and try to work with Commissioner Ellis see if we can bring something back jointly.

The author, Mr. Harrington, is recommending that we hold it, and actually three that deal with ethics, and we want to take those together, so hold all three.

Yeah, I'd like to make some introductory comments. I realize we're not going to vote up, but when we get to mine, you can go ahead and take care of this other thing. I'll just make some comments on it. All right. Which other one?

I'm going to save my comments. I wanted to make some comments, too, but I'm going to save them because it's been a long day.

No, no. I mean, part of this is about getting the conversation started. That's why these are on the agenda. So I know it's 512, but I think we can briefly get the conversation started. So if you want to, you can take this other one, 603, and then I'm happy to comment on my stuff.

All right, motion to approve by Commissioner Barrett, seconded by Commissioner Arrington. Let's vote.

Okay, now the three ethics one, there are three.

Yeah. Well, I'll hold mine to have that because mine really can fit either one of them. Right, right. Mine is held also.

Yeah. You want me to just make some comments on 605?

I'll just speak to this broadly and specifically to the item that I brought forward. Look, we've had a lot of conversations around ethics and so forth, and some of this stuff has come up. Ultimately, we need an ethics code that establishes public trust, has got clear standards of conduct and provisions regarding conflict of interest, nepotism, et cetera, recusal, all those things. But it also needs to be something that the people that have to follow it understand it, it's clear to them, so they have the confidence to act. you know, in their capacity and not being subjected to attempts of gotch

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments. I do want to say, as it relates to Commissioner Arrington's item, you know, I certainly agree that structurally there are some issues with the ethics board. And in my personal opinion is that it's not that the individual, for me, it's not that the individuals on there are in any way incapable of performing their duties. But for me, there are some procedural problems in the way the process works and the way the People engaging with the process are notified and informed about how the process is meant to work. So I think there's some work that c

Commissioner Harrington. I was going to say my comments, but since Commissioner Ellis and Barrett shared theirs, I think we have a lot of ordinances that need to be looked at with a fresh set of eyes. Our ethics code is one of them. Our rules and procedures is another. The problem that my agenda item addresses is not, it addresses the processes and procedures, but more specifically, it addresses a continual, systematic, and deliberate intention to violate the specific terms of the ethics code by the existing board. And so for me, I don't care what changes we make, but the people who have conti

Just one quick note. I hear you, Commissioner Arrington, and I think the county attorney has agreed in the past, I don't want to put words in your mouth, that they have, in fact, violated the code. Would you agree with that, or would you characterize it some other way?

So I guess the question would be, and maybe this is the way to go, you know, could you make recommendation, county attorney, on the best way to, you know, move forward? If we wanted to keep the same structure but disband and, you know, kind of what we did with the housing authority. Like, what are our options in terms of addressing Commissioner Arrington's concerns and your, you know, validated concerns of their... you know, violation of those rules and procedures. Would that be something we could look at as a part of this process? Not today.

That was on there as a placeholder. I think we discussed that already. Okay. Thank you.

All right, no further matters to come before us today. We are adjourned.