June Wood, Chair, called the Regular Public Meeting of the Henry County Board of Commissioners for 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 3, 2018, to order.

Transcription

1 STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF HENRY The Henry County Board of Commissioners held a Regular Public Meeting at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 3, 2018, in Henry County Administration Building, Community Room, at 140 Henry Parkway, McDonough, GA. Notice of this meeting was posted in the entrance foyer of the County Administration Building. The Henry Daily Herald was notified of this meeting. Those present were: June Wood, Chair Johnny Wilson, District I Commissioner Dee Clemmons, District II Commissioner Gary Barham, District III Commissioner Blake Prince, District IV Commissioner Bruce Holmes, District V Commissioner Also attending: Cheri Hobson-Matthews, County Manager; Brad Johnson, Assistant County Manager; Patrick Jaugstetter, Attorney for the County; and Stephanie Braun, County Clerk. CALL TO ORDER June Wood, Chair, called the Regular Public Meeting of the Henry County Board of Commissioners for 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 3, 2018, to order. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA Chair Wood announced that one (1) item from the Agenda is to be removed, as follows: XI. MAGISTRATE COURT: Resolution approving appointment of Senior Magistrate. Exhibit #7 Dee Clemmons, District II Commissioner, made a motion to accept the Agenda, as amended; Gary Barham, District III Commissioner, seconded the motion. The motion to accept the Agenda for today s meeting was carried unanimously (6-0-0). HENRY COUNTY YEARS OF SERVICE AWARDS Doris Patterson, Human Resources Director, appearing on behalf of the Communications Director, approached with Harold Cooper, Human Resources Assistant Director, to announce employees who have received milestone awards in the year 2017 (20 years of service; 25 years of service; 30 years of service; 35 years of service; and 40 years of service). Several employees have exceeded these milestones over the last few years as well and they are acknowledged as well. Ms. Patterson also asked that the Board allow her to call the employees (over 40) by groups, and once each group has been called, photos will be taken (by group), with the Board members. 20 Years Brenda Bennett - Budget Department Roy Nix - Fire Department Jason McCullough - Fire Department Robert English - Fire Department Jason Maneol - Fire Department

2 Page 2 of 18 Wanda Maddox - Fire Department Cyndia Chambers - District Attorney s Office Barbara Crittenden - Building & Plan Review Allen M. White - Sheriff's Office Levester Sims - Sheriff's Office Kenneth Turner - Police Department Steven Wilson - Police Department Julie Vinson - Tax Assessor s Office Patricia Delk-Bogue - GIS Sharon Mitchell - Sheriff's Office Jimmy Trepanier - Sheriff's Office Michael Hardy - Sheriff's Office Harold Hogan - Maintenance Angela Laslay - Police Department Michelle Price - Public Works/Construction Hutch Purvis - Facilities James Going - Police Department Jeffery Maddox - Police Department Charlotte Allen Years Michael Cone - Sheriff's Office James Burch - Police Department Tracy Richardson - Police Department John Harper - Sheriff's Office Koweena Starks - Tax Assessor s Office Dennis Hall - Sheriff's Office Mark Henley - Fire Department Michael Mercer - Sheriff's Office Lynn Whitt - Senior Services Stuart Duffey - Sheriff's Office Vince Farah - Animal Control 30 Years David Ritchie - Fire Department Charles Brooks - Fire Department Calvin McClendon - Stormwater Donna Holder - Recreation Lora Bagby - Facilities Mitchell Scogin - Fire Department Mark Spradlin - Fire Department PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN

3 Page 3 of Years Stan Jones - Fire Department David Foster - Sheriff's Office PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN 40 Years Robert Keith McBrayer - Sheriff's Office APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN Commissioner Clemmons made a motion to approve the appointment of Bruce Holmes, District V Commissioner as Vice-Chair; Commissioner Barham seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried unanimously (6-0-0). APPOINTMENTS OF COUNTY CLERK & DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK Commissioner Barham made a motion to approve the re-appointments of Stephanie Braun as County Clerk and Consuelo Conner as Deputy County Clerk; Commissioner Clemmons seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0). APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH Commissioner Holmes made a motion to approve the appointment of Dr. Andrea Miles to the Henry County Board of Health; Blake Prince, District IV Commissioner, seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0). CONSENT AGENDA The following items shall be considered on a Consent Agenda. Before voting on the Consent Agenda items, the Chair will provide an opportunity to add or delete items. Connecting Henry A. Resolution approving Family Connection Operating Grant for Connecting Henry from the Georgia Department of Human Services Exhibit #1 Resolution Public Works A. Resolution authorizing a budget amendment of FY2017 Local Maintenance Improvement Grant (LMIG) funds from Restricted Fund Balance to Henry County Department of Transportation General Supplies and Asphalt Exhibit #2 Resolution SPLOST A. Resolution approving the Utility Relocation Agreement with Georgia Power Company for McDonough Parkway Extension (SR 42 to SR 155). District III Exhibit #3 Resolution B. Resolution approving the Henry County Water Authority utility relocation estimated cost for Amah Lee road. District II. Exhibit #4 Resolution 18-07

4 Page 4 of 18 C. Resolution approving the Henry County Water Authority utility relocation estimated cost for the South Bethany Road at Old Jackson Road Intersection Improvement, SPLOST-IV project. District I. Exhibit #5 Resolution There being no questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Holmes made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda; Johnny Wilson, District I Commissioner, seconded the motion. The motion to approve the Consent Agenda was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0). SPLOST Resolution approving a budget amendment and bid award for construction of the Elliott Road SPLOST-IV dirt road improvement project District IV. Exhibit #6 Roque Romero, Transportation Project Director, gave a brief explanation of the details outlined in the Executive Summary for the Board. A budget amendment in the amount of $1,508,695 is needed for this project. Staff recommends using funds from District IV, as outlined in the Executive Summary. Commissioner Prince asked how long this has been pending; Mr. Romero responded it has been since SPLOST-III and property owners near the area have been waiting for a long time on this project. The District IV Commissioner asked the director to outline where the funding is coming from and why it is being taken from other accounts. Mr. Romero explained that there was some utility relocation where the costs were prohibitive so, in order to compensate for that, other ongoing projects have additional funds which were not used for construction that can be transferred to the funds for this item. The Commissioner added that just because money is coming out of those projects does not mean that those projects will not be completed; it merely means there are excess funds in those project accounts because of savings realized on them, that could be utilized for this project. There are very few dirt roads in District IV and they are becoming even rarer. Commissioner Prince then asked the Director to give a brief overview on the construction process, in the interest of keeping his constituents informed of same; Mr. Romero responded that if this is approved, it will take approximately two (2) weeks for the contractor to provide needed information (bonds, insurance). A pre-construction meeting will then be held and hopefully, by the end of the month, there will be a pre-construction completed and by the end of January/first of February, the clearing process will begin. Utilities will then be relocated and some of them will take longer than others to complete that part of the process. Once that is completed, the construction moves forward. Approximately ten (10) months have been estimated as the timeline for completion of this project. The District IV Commissioner advised that if there are any questions or concerns from his constituents regarding the progress of this project, to please call his office. He recalled a past issue with utility relocation and wanted to let his District know that this may take a little longer than anticipated, but that it is moving forward. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Prince made a motion to approve; Commissioner Clemmons seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve Resolution was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0). PUBLIC SAFETY Resolution requesting the purchase of one hundred and eighty (180) cellular smart phones for Uniform Patrol Division, Code Enforcement and Animal Control Exhibit #8

5 Page 5 of 18 Randall McGlamery, Captain, Henry County Police Department, and Deputy Chief Mark Amerman, Henry County Police Department, approached. Deputy Chief Amerman remarked that this is very important and reminded the Board about the use of technology and transparency therein; he believes this is a critical component for the Police Department to have body cameras as a way to document the events happening in the field. The cameras also hope to decrease court time as well as give video evidence to use in internal investigations in the hopes of reducing frivolous lawsuits and increased successful prosecutions. Having body cameras with these smart phones provides more transparency in the officers conducts, making it less likely to have them commit acts of misconduct. The Deputy Chief provided examples from research he had recently conducted on use of force incidents and video documentation upon the introduction of these devices within the police departments. He believes these devices can act as a neutral witness in each encounter between officer(s) and citizen(s). Deputy Chief Amerman explained that Capt. McGlamery has done the majority of work on this item and believes that the Board will support this request. Capt. McGlamery remarked that he believes the officers should not be limited by camera-only device, when there is technology available for the functionality of multiple devices at a significant savings. The requested devices are capable of providing multiple functions for each officer - such as: acting as a cell phone accessing county at any time text messaging for internal use and critical calls (such as child disappearance) audio recorder GPS locator body camera (with Cloud management software) live audio feed (effective for active shooter or multiple officer deployment events) MotionDSP Ikena Spotlight redaction software Hotspot Wi-Fi (for accessing GCIC and NCIC from their vehicle) Capt. McGlamery then presented a video to highlight the features of the devices for the Board and public viewing. Commissioner Prince emphasized that this is a very big deal and that body cameras were considered in the past, but storage of those devices were a concern. While he was skeptical, the Commissioner did research and found that this will be of great benefit to the Police Department and to the county. The computers in the vehicles do not have Wi-Fi capability; the Hotspots provide the internet connectivity that can be used by the officers and these devices will provide the same plus other needed features to complete investigations and at-the-scene calls. Capt. McGlamery explained that the devices are Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) compliant, storing all of the data in the Windows Azure system, which has an agreement with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). Employees of that company are also in CJIS compliance, taking the same tests that police officers take, which is in line with GCIC and NCIC. The District IV Commissioner explained that every Henry County officer who pulls a citizen over will have a body camera on them and it will be operating. He is in full support of this request before the Board. Commissioner Prince explained that a lot of software was recently purchased and these devices will pair with that software to dispatch the closest unit to an area in need. He thanked departmental staff and the presenters for their efforts in bringing this to the Board and hopes to see good results in the near future.

6 Page 6 of 18 Commissioner Clemmons echoed the District IV Commissioner s remarks and understands that technology is needed for the county s Public Safety. The body cameras are vital to the Police Department and also help with community concerns encountered by citizens with police officers, bringing about accountability and transparency, as well as evidence and documentation, which is necessary in dealing with the court system. The Commissioner expressed her main concern with the funding and noted that Visual Labs will provide the first training for $9,500 for the existing officers. She asked how new officers will train on this, how the training will continue and how this will be funded, especially in light of upgrading the technology. She also asked about the monthly service fees incorporated in s budget (unspecified amount). This will take additional funding in the next budget cycle to continue this service, continued training and data storage. She also voiced her full support of this project but wanted the public to be made aware that this additional line item will have ongoing needs for funding. Capt. McGlamery responded that Visual Labs will assist in the ongoing training, which has already been discussed. There is a Training Division which will be on board with the implementation process and future officers will be trained in the same manner that the existing officers will be in the initial rollout. Updated training will become part of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) within the department as well. The District II Commissioner asked that policies also be discussed, as far as privacy policy with body cameras, with the legalities associated to same. The Captain has already discussed this with the District Attorney s Office, the Solicitor General s Office and Proxy Attorney counsel; legal ramifications will be discussed very soon. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Prince made a motion to approve; Commissioner Clemmons seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion to approve Resolution was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0). HUMAN RESOURCES & RISK MANAGEMENT Resolution approving incentive-based, tiered medical premium structure for Wellness participation Exhibit #9 Doris Patterson, Human Resources Director, explained that this would take effect on June 1, She summarized that over the last several years, the County Manager team and the Board has identified the need to enhance the Employee Wellness Initiative to reduce medical premium costs while improving the health of the employees. This would put in place for Plan Year, an incentive for the first year with two (2) requirements - for employees to complete either an annual biometric screening or undergo a physical exam, between June 1, 2017 and April 9, 2018; and for employees to complete a designated online Health Risk Assessment, provided by their insurance carrier (currently Blue Cross Blue Shield and Kaiser). An incentive is proposed for employees who participate in those two (2) activities for anyone enrolled in the county-sponsored plan ($40/month premium credit), with one (1) employee per family allowed. Ms. Patterson also explained that this is to be the beginning where every January, the Board is presented with a proposal to add more activities or incentive programs to continually improve the premium costs and the health of the employees. She stated that the insurance consultants and benefits consultant is in attendance from Epic. Commissioner Clemmons asked how the annual discount amount ($480) will be funded and if the money received from Association County Commissioners of Georgia (ACCG) and other insurance premiums can be used for this incentive funding. She also wanted to know if there is any evidence-based research that shows this strategy will decrease the premiums. Ms. Patterson explained that the figures have not yet been determined on the budget part, which will not be presented until late February/early March. The incentive is taken into consideration, once the figures are presented, so that funding will

7 Page 7 of 18 balance out. Money will not be paid out with a determination of how to fund it happening later. This will be included in the budget for the benefits program. The District II Commissioner asked if that means the county would have to basically pay people to participate in a Wellness program; Ms. Patterson deferred the question to Ayana Collins from Epic. Ayana Collins, Wellness consultant, Epic Insurance Brokers, approached and remarked that she works along with Michael Gasses on providing structure for the incentive program. In response to the District II Commissioner s question on funding or paying into the program, this is looked upon as an initial investment into the employees that will return over time. Funds from ACCG, as well as from medical carriers can be used to help support the cost to implement this type of Wellness program. Regarding the evidence-based research, Ms. Collins responded that over time, there hopes to be a reduction in the medical premium. The program is designed to educate the employees in terms of their own health statuses. A biometric screening can give indications of where the employee s risk levels for a chronic disease (or other preventable diseases) stand, which takes only fifteen (15) minutes. The Health Risk Assessment can be completed to give a better understanding of where their strengths are in their health statuses, as well as areas of needs and improvements. The return on the investment would include healthier employees, perhaps a reduction in sick time, and the idea that the county truly cares for their employees. Commissioner Clemmons agrees the Wellness program is needed and understands the Health Risk Assessment, but she asked if the county has to pay their employees $480 (per employee) to participate in the Health Risk Assessment; Ms. Collins deferred the question to the County Manager for response. Cheri Hobson-Matthews, County Manager, responded that the county is not paying employees to participate in the Wellness program; this is only an incentive for the employees. She explained that if an employee does the Health Risk Assessment and the biometric screening, there will be a reduction in the premium cost that the employee pays (in the approximate amount of $40). Employees who do not elect to complete the Health Risk Assessment or the biometric screening will have no repercussions and will pay their current premium cost. The District II Commissioner asked if the $40 is paid by the county and not the employee; Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded that the $40 is a reduction to what the participating employee would pay. The Commissioner persisted in asking if there is any impact of this discount on the budget; the County Manager responded that there will be an impact to the budget. The District II Commissioner then reiterated that the county will pay the reduction difference in the participating employee s premium cost - per employee, which will impact the budget. She added that this is not needed to have this Wellness program. Ms. Hobson-Matthews remarked that this incentive is offered to get employees to participate in the Wellness program. Commissioner Clemmons explained that money is already received from Blue Cross Blue Shield and ACCG and they are being used to pay people to come in to give yoga lessons and she wonders if that money should go back to the employees. In spite of the incentives already enacted (such as yoga lessons, cookouts, etc.), employee participation into the Wellness program remains low. Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded that there are a number of employees who are participating in Wellness activities, and one where the employees will be receiving some very large prizes for their participation is forthcoming. While the numbers may be low, the County Manager believes the enrollment numbers have increased over the last year and a half. Employees only want to participate if there is something in it for them. Last year, there was an increase to the health insurance cost and the Board elected to take on all of that cost; however, during the budget meetings and insurance talks, something must be put in place to get the employees healthier and get them to be responsible for the increase in cost because the county will not continue to pay that. Ms. Patterson then explained that each year, discussions are held on what can be done in regard to renewal of the medical plan coverage. Last year, it was decided that other measures had to be put in place and have chosen to use the carrot method - to present incentives out there to get employees to participate in the Wellness program - such as Wellness funds provided from the carriers, to offset any costs associated with the program. The two (2) requirements are very easy and do not require extraneous efforts - just get a physical or participate in the biometric screening, and go online and take a Health Risk

8 Page 8 of 18 Assessment. Once that is done, the tools are available for the employee to address any particular health concerns which they may have. Mr. Gasses team also provides (on a quarterly basis) a utilization information regarding the health plan coverage, which does not violate any privacy issues, but discloses employees and their participating families, some of whom have grave health issues which need to be addressed. Putting these types of program in place will provide information to the employee to start addressing those concerns. Whatever the issue is, there are a number of programs with information available on how to address and, in some cases, resolve these concerns. Ms. Patterson urged employees to know what their risk factors are, and the tools are now provided to discover and assess them. Commissioner Clemmons stated she would like to see what impact this will have on the budget and if some type of data on how the premium was affected can be gathered. The Wellness program will continue without an incentive discount of $480 per employee that the county would be responsible for, since it would impact the budget. If half of the employees would elect to do this, she does not know how this would impact the budget. The District II Commissioner does not believe in giving the employees something and then taking it back. Funding options must be discussed as well as whether the county can commit to this type of discount. In short, the Wellness program will continue without the $480 (per employee) discount if they participate in this program and it is supported by the county and the state. The thought of not supporting the discount means not supporting the Wellness program as a whole is not true and the Commissioner adamantly opposed it being presented in such fashion. Ms. Hobson-Matthews understood the Commissioner s concerns, but there has to be a start somewhere with the employees to get them to participate in the Wellness program. She believes that right now, about twelve (12%) percent of the county employees are participating in the Wellness fairs; adding this incentive will hopefully get more employees to participate in the Wellness activities. There may be employees who have undiagnosed high blood pressure (for example), but money is paid out for them to have high blood pressure medication. Regardless of this program being in place, the County Manager explained that the county is still paying out more because those employees are not taking care of themselves and they have not taken the Health Risk Assessment nor gotten a biometric screening. In an effort to get employees healthier, the Wellness component is tied in because that is the first step to getting them healthier. Wellness programs are successful provided that the buy-in is provided by the employees. This incentive program was structured to not penalize anyone who does not wish to participate. Until employees health becomes better and their participation in Wellness activities increases, the county will continue to see an annual increase in premium costs. Chair Wood recalled seeing a strong increase of claims, meaning that the employees are not healthy (as a whole). She sees this incentive as a benefit, to get employees to at least visit a doctor or get a screening to better identify what is needed to improve their health. If there is a concern about the employees, the Chair asked why this incentive is not offered to all employees - acknowledging the one benefit per family aside - but if there are employees in the same family, why that employee is not allowed to have that benefit, if the county cares about their health as well. The Chair understands this is a voluntary process and agrees that the financial aspect of it must be discussed and agreed upon; however, the goal is to help the county employees to be healthy, to stay healthy and to see the benefits of the Wellness program. The concern is how to get them to be more responsible for their own care, with or without these incentives, if not to offer it to all county employees (but not to other family members), as the Chair believes that the employee should get that benefit. Ms. Patterson explained that there are a number of incentive programs which exist; typically, the first year, the baseline is offered. This year, these two (2) items were selected. Next year, another incentive would be offered, and so forth. One option would have been to offer this to every employee, regardless of family member being employed with the county; however, as the District II Commissioner stated, this would have an impact on the budget and that provision was not to be put on in the first year until it was completed to see how the budget is actually impacted. Some of the impact will be offset by the Wellness funding, but until the actual number of participating employees is determined, this would not be included in the budget s impact for the first

9 Page 9 of 18 year. It can be done in the second year, but a conservative approach was taken initially with an eye toward adding incentives in the next years. Chair Wood agreed that there should be financial data to illustrate the cost per employee, with the other scenarios that could potentially impact the budget. This is a good program, however, in terms of long-term benefits and making the employees aware and informed on how to better care for their health. Commissioner Barham also sees some benefits but he also wants to know more on the financial end of this and how it will affect the budget. Ms. Patterson mentioned that the timing of bringing this before the Board is to allow the employees an opportunity to get the activities done. A Request for Proposal (RFP) process is currently going on for benefits coverage for the next year and unfortunately the timing on that, with the process, will take longer than is allowed for employees to go in and perform the biometric screening and physical examination. Approval was sought for the program itself and to have the budget part discussed and presented during the RFP process, to be presented by Mr. Gasses team. Commissioner Wilson understands the benefits and agrees with it, but the goal is to reduce the premiums; however, he wanted to know if anyone is utilizing this Wellness program currently who can speak to its effects upon them - in terms of benefits of participation; Ms. Collins responded that currently, Epic is working with Forsyth County. They have been working diligently on their Wellness program for at least 5-6 years; as of right now, they have the same program in place with a 98% participation from their employees, which is seeing a reduction in terms of claims utilization. They have a similar structure of two (2) carriers as well. The risk levels of their employees are also decreasing and the education process in terms of using urgent care versus ER, for employees to go in and get their annual physical are also changing. Clayton County is also seeing the same increase in participation, as well as in Cobb County. Commissioner Prince does not understand the money aspect of this program and asked for an example of John Q. Employee who signs up to participate in the Wellness program, gets the $480 annual discount, and where that money is coming from; Ms. Collins explained that John Q. signs up, had a physical in May of 2017; he needs to take a Health Risk Assessment, which he does. Human Resources will get a report saying that John Q. satisfied both requirements and is now eligible for the $480 annual reduction in his premium cost. That $40 reduction (monthly) will then be put upon the county s budget in terms of how the county will pay for that difference. Part of that can come from ACCG and Wellness incentives from the carriers themselves to offset the county s payment of that $40 monthly discount seen by John Q. for participating and meeting the requirements of the Wellness program s incentives. If there is a remaining amount of that $40 that needs to be paid by the county, Ms. Collins stated she would not know the answer to that question. While the county does not want to raise the premiums this year, it is an option that other counties use to offset that cost and make it cost-neutral. Ms. Hobson-Matthews added that when the premium costs were set for the employees, it is set by the Board. Currently, there is an RFP out and it is unknown what the cost will be for insurance in terms of who the carrier will be for the next plan year. Every year, when the budget is presented, different numbers are shown in charges to the employees, such as 50% or 25%; the Board will have to determine what the cost will be. It could be revenue-neutral if it is decided to set the cost at a certain amount, to negate any impact the $40 would have on the budget. If the Board elects to keep the cost as it is today, and if there is an increase from the carriers that come in, the Board will have to decide on whether to increase the amount that the employees pay and determine the county s contribution - or if the employees will take on that additional cost themselves. Not knowing what the final cost will be for the upcoming plan year, this incentive must be put in front of the actual open enrollment because the open enrollment cannot be done and not have the incentives in place - which makes this item a time-sensitive one. The County Manager believes there may be some crossing of terminology in discussing increase in premium and increase in claims. She called Mr. Gasses up to give an update.

10 Page 10 of 18 Chair Wood called order to the meeting and yielded the floor to the District IV Commissioner prior to Mr. Gasses making comment. Commissioner Prince calculated that $480 per year, per employee (with approximately 1,600 employees) would total $768,000 that the county would have to pay if all 1,600 employees participated in the Wellness program. He does not understand where that money would come from. Referring back to John Q. Employee, when it is determined that he has a credit, if it means that he would get an increase of $40 per month that the county would pay back to him. The District IV Commissioner is well aware that program is a great one and that it works, but he is asking for focus on the money part of this. Ms. Patterson clarified that there are approximately 1,400 employees with the county on the medical program right now. Putting incentive programs in place does not mean that everyone with the medical program coverage will automatically participate, so that figure is really unknown. To use a 60% of the total employees as a starting point number representing those who would participate in the Wellness program would be the starting figure. The figure of $40 is not necessarily the amount to use in the discount; $25 could be used if the county wanted to enact the Wellness program (or any other figure). The proposed discount was suggested in an attempt to be enough to attract employees to participate. A more conservative figure could be used as well. She introduced Mr. Gasses to provide better detail. Commissioner Prince persisted again in asking where the money will come from, if employees participate in the Wellness program and are given a yearly incentive discount of $480 (per employee); Michael Gasses, Michael Gasses Agency, approached with the intent of answering the Commissioner s question directly. In a real-case scenario, a family is charged $160 per month for family coverage. If that stays the same and then there is a rate increase, that $40 affects the budget (per month), annually ($480), per 1,000 employees who participate ($480,000). Revenue-neutral would mean that if there is an increase and a family is charged $200 and it is not accepted, but the discount brings it back down to $160; in reality, if 1,000 employees participate, it will affect the budget in the amount of $480,000 (if the $480 annual discount is applied). The Commissioner thanked Mr. Gasses for answering his question. Mr. Gasses added that there should be caution in using the term lower the premiums because that may not happen. The rate increases can be lowered. Premiums will not decrease, but the rate increases can be lowered and held in better control when the claims are in better control. Commissioner Clemmons asked if the other counties mentioned are also doing the Health Risk Assessment and the biometric screening and are not giving cash incentives to the employees; and if this is approved and the cash incentive is taken out, the employee can enroll in this program and not have any additional incentives other than what is received from the money the county already receives from ACCG and the carriers. There does not have to be any additional effect on the county budget just to have this program. Adding the Health Risk Assessment and the biometric screening can be done without encumbering the budget and adding a cash incentive. Mr. Gasses responded that the employees already have that and they do not have to enroll in anything they already have. The District II Commissioner surmised that this only about the $480 proposed annual incentive discount to the employees, which would impact the budget. She directed the County Manager to stop having directors approach and giving the Board the impression that this is time-sensitive, since these requirements for participating in the Wellness program are already in place and there is no rush. The premiums would be reduced because the employees are enrolling in this and there are great programs within HR for Wellness and she wants to see results from that prior to bringing on additional fees to this Board. Ms. Collins apologized to the District II Commissioner for the confusion, and added that there are counties offer premium reductions which are, in essence, cash incentives for their employees to participate in their Wellness program. The Commissioner does not believe any agreement needs to be reached today and is willing to discuss the annual discount amount which may be adjusted; Mr. Gasses responded that 12% of the employees are currently participating in the Wellness program and every year, there are benefits fairs

11 Page 11 of 18 with incentives and prizes in an effort to increase the participation rate. The program is there, but to get participation to increase, there are counties that have offered cash incentives. Commissioner Wilson recalled last year talking about a clinic which would get employees healthier, reduce premiums and reduce visits to the doctor. He wanted to know what happened to that idea; Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded that is currently being discussed internally and the consultant is looking at a proposal to bring back to her office, to present to the Board. During the adoption of the budget last year, in discussing the insurance costs (since there was a substantial increase), a directive that this Board gave to staff was to look at ideas and innovations to recommend to the Board in terms of what can be done to reduce claims. Employees will not participate if there is no benefit for them. They have to know that there is an incentive for them to join a Wellness program. This is the first step toward making the program what the county employees would want and they have to start somewhere. She would be shocked if the Board receives (in 5-6 years) a decrease in insurance costs. There will be an increase in insurance costs, a lot of which is attributed to employees who are not going to the doctor s when they are sick. They get sick during the week and on the weekend; they wind up in the emergency room. Employees think they are paying their $200 co-pay and that is the only cost; however, the County Manager explained that a $200 visit to the ER costs the county $10,000 for things that could be taken care of with a visit to the employee s primary care physician. The County Manager believes the employees are ready for the clinic, but there is a cost to establishing it and it does go to some of the questions that the Board is raising. It is unwise to open a clinic and then the next year not able to keep it going because it was not budgeted. Information was provided to the Board that once the clinic was opened, there would be a reduction in cost; the County Manager clarified that a clinic does not reduce the cost. The clinic would be a service provided to the employees at no cost, but will cost the county to open the clinic. This presentation is the initial step to bring to this Board. Commissioner Barham asked the County Manager if there are any projections on what the increase will be for the next plan year; Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded that at this time, there are no figures available as the RFP process is ongoing and Mr. Gasses office is handling that part. The District III Commissioner believes this is a very important decision for the Board to make and does not believe that speculation on employee participation can be accurate, but he believes this should be discussed at a Special Called Meeting or Workshop, to allow for more information to be presented to the Commissioners so that they can make a better informed determination on this. Chair Wood stated that she is familiar with this program from a previous career and it does work, but she agrees that this Board needs the full packaging of how the financials are going to impact the bottom-line of the budget. The Board is concerned for employees health and wellness and the county boldly absorbed all of the insurance increases last year. If the insurance goes up again this year and then potentially seeing the benefits to this particular program, the Board needs to have the full detail, even if it is trying to be addressed in a timely manner. The precedent is that the Board must have more information before making a decision. Ms. Hobson-Matthews suggested that she recommend tabling this item until further information can be provided to the Board and try to schedule a Workshop between now and the next Regular BOC Meeting to have the pending questions answered for complete disclosure. The Chair also believes that there should be an estimate of how many employees are interested in the Wellness program given to the Board as well. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Barham made a motion to table this item; Commissioner Prince seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the motion to table this item pending further discussion was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0).

12 Page 12 of 18 SENIOR SERVICES Resolution awarding RFP #18-14 to One Care Health Services, LLC for Senior Services In- Home Service Program Exhibit #10 Diane Reed, Senior Services Director, explained that the Senior Services provides services to senior adults in their homes who are in need of same. Staff recommends awarding the contract of the agency to provide those services to One Care Health Services, LLC. Commissioner Clemmons asked if there is any data on how many seniors are serviced in their homes throughout Henry County and if those data is broken down by District; Ms. Reed responded that she does not have that information about how they are broken down by District, but she could share how many people are on the waiting list and how that is broken down by District. On the surface, it is countywide and the largest concentration would seem to be on the north end of the county (Stockbridge and Fairview). The District II Commissioner is aware of the waiting list and she is concerned on how they can receive services in their home and finding more funding for that. Commissioner Prince asked if this is the same service agency that the county used about two years ago and, if so, how this is going and if they are providing the services needed; Ms. Reed responded that the bulk of the homemaker services that do not require any licensure are provided by in-house staff. A contract was entered into with ResCare last year and another contract is being sought with another agency, as the performance from ResCare was not up to the Senior Services Department s standards. Commissioner Clemmons suggested a meeting later on this, but she asked for more accountability from the people who are getting paid to go into the homes of these seniors, since this is a huge responsibility and that they should be attended to in the same manner as the children are looked after in the county s parks. Over the years, there have been reports brought back to the Board on who is serviced, how many are serviced and the accountability of these services and their providers. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Prince made a motion to approve; Commissioner Clemmons seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0). TRANSIT Resolution approving the purchase of one (1) 20-passenger ADA shuttle bus through Federal Transit Administration 5307 Grant utilizing Georgia Department of Transportation Contract # DOT Exhibit #11 Taleim Salters, Transit Director, stated that the cost is approximately $79, for this needed vehicle; the 20% match for Henry County is in the amount of $15,856.18, which is in Transit s budget for this year. The vehicle is to be used in a future planned fixed route in Henry County. Chair Wood asked if the budget also provides payment for the driver of this vehicle; Mr. Salters responded that a currently employed in-house staff will be used in the driver position during the pilot run of this route. He would like to have additional drivers within the department, though, as they are currently short-staffed; but they do have funding for a driver. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Holmes made a motion to approve; Commissioner Prince seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0).

13 Page 13 of 18 TECHNOLOGY SERVICES Resolution approving the licensing and implementation of Cisco Voice Infrastructure Upgrade Exhibit #12 Skip Floyd, Technology Services Director explained that the request would allow Technology Services to upgrade the current phone voice systems inside the county, which are fifteen (15) years old and have been deemed too old to continue supporting. Staff recommends going through the licensing of Cisco s current voice infrastructure from the current provider, SPS. Pricing is through Georgia State Contract at a cost that is spread over 5 years at payments of $100,204.93; this is financed through Cisco Systems Capital Financing at a rate of 2.99%. The first year is already budgeted and will be included in future budgets each year. Chair Wood referred to the Terms and Conditions for SPS s agreement, she noted it that the service maintenance window is valid for thirty (30) days. The Chair asked if this is standard for this type agreement; Mr. Floyd responded that this provides a service and annual maintenance for five (5) years. SPS provides the service for Cisco. There being no further questions or comments from the Board, Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve; Commissioner Prince seconded the motion. The motion to approve Resolution was carried by unanimous vote (6-0-0). COUNTY MANAGER Resolution approving the Master Plan for Nash Farm Exhibit #13 (updated) Ms. Hobson-Matthews gave an overview for the 2009 planning of Nash Farm Park, to create a regional park concept after the county acquired the property. She gave a history of the development of Nash Farm through visual presentation for the Board and the public. The Resolution this morning is to adopt the Master Plan here presented and by adopting the Plan, the County Manager staff in consultation with Parks & Recreation staff and Zoning Advisory Board will prioritize project needs as identified in the Master Plan. Ms. Hobson-Matthews is aware of the questions regarding how this will be funded and asked the Board, if the Resolution is passed, to add paragraph to indicate that 20% of the revenues collected from events held at Nash Farm are to be placed in the existing Nash Farm Project account to fund capital project needs, once they are identified and presented to the Board for approval. Commissioner Barham remarked that the historical battlefield is still set aside; he asked if this can be declared as perpetual green space ; Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded that if it is agreed to by the Board that can be made part of the Resolution. She wants the Board to understand what is delineated on this map for the Master Plan, which is currently in existence at the time that the Plan was developed. The County Manager explained that there should be some type of framework so that, going forward, in making improvements that there is a Plan in place. Commissioner Prince asked the County Manager to show the other side of the display and for clarification he remarked that there would seem to be confusion regarding this site. Nash Farm has been a hot topic recently and the District IV Commissioner found this Master Plan and he has been trying to get this on the Agenda for about six (6) months. He wanted to know what the initial presiding Board of 2009 wanted to do with this property and the park and why they bought it. A Plan is now being implemented that was first completed in 2008; there have been no changes made and he agrees to the 20% of the revenue generated from the park and putting it back into the park. He provided this for transparency purposes and to inform his constituents of the intent for this property.

14 Page 14 of 18 Commissioner Wilson asked how much money is owed on Nash Farm. After some checking, the District I Commissioner explained that the point is that the county still owes a great deal of money on the property itself, so there must be a way to pay off the remaining balance owed. After that, he then recommended working on the Master Plan and the projects. Ms. Hobson-Matthews advised that the payoff figure on the property is approximately $2.5 million. The Commissioner remarked that if 20% of the revenues go towards the improvements, then it should first go towards paying off the balance owed on the property prior to development. Commissioner Clemmons agreed with the District IV Commissioner s perception of the Master Plan. At our first Town Hall, the District IV Commissioner was in attendance where the Master Plan was presented to the community; it was overwhelmingly accepted by the residents. There was $8 million worth of debt on the property. The county has never had to worry about paying this debt because the citizens of District II have paid all of the debt on Nash Farm and will continue to pay the debt until the rest of this Board decides to use the District Impact Fees to pay for the park. No money has come out of General Fund to pay for the balance owed on the property. No one has stood up for this District about having their money from their District s impact fees to pay on the balance owed on the property. The Commissioner emphasized that if District II is continuing to pay down the balance, then a Master Plan should be in place with something out there to enjoy. She asked that each District s Impact Fees also go towards paying down this balance before starting any projects on this park. Commissioner Holmes asked if there is a plan in place already for the debt to be paid off by 2021; Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded there is. She recalled the Finance Director refinanced this in order for that to be paid off in The District V Commissioner believes this to be a great opportunity for this park that has been lying dormant for years. This was never a battlefield and the actual battle took place at Lovejoy Station and suggested moving forward with the Master Plan to make this a great asset for the county. Chair Wood knows there are still questions about the battlefield and this Plan seems to mark off the battlefield area as protected, based on what is seen on the diagram. She wonders how this continues to protect the interest of the history here in Henry County. Ms. Hobson-Matthews explained that the intent of the Resolution is to adopt the Master Plan based on the recommendations which are to the left and right of the plan illustration. The existing structures are not taken into account in the Resolution insofar as doing anything to them with upcoming work and will remain on the property. Parks & Recreation should prioritize the needs for this park as there is none at this time - nor is there any in place for a lot of the other facilities in the county. This is the first step. Various groups have requested to do work at the facility out there and it is not something the county wants to do because there is already a Plan in place. She emphasized that there needs to be a Master Plan in place for all of the parks throughout the county, as this is a critical factor in setting what the priorities are for them. Chair Wood asked if both sides of the Master Plan are to be voted upon today for approval, with no choices; Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded that is correct and no changes are being recommended to the Master Plan. Commissioner Barham asked what the total revenue will be (the 20%); Ms. Hobson-Matthews explained that it is not 20% of the impact fees, but 20% of the revenues collected from individuals who utilize Nash Farm for various events. The District III Commissioner asked if there is an estimate available; Ms. Hobson-Matthews responded that she will provide that information at a later time. The Commissioner wondered if it is enough to do anything on the Master Plan. The County Manager responded that it will be a starting point.