Good afternoon.

Thank you.

The Finance Committee meeting will now start.

First order of business is going to be talking about the two items that we will be voting on in the special meeting.

Are there any questions about the two items?

Okay.

Order authorizing the mayor to execute a renewable agreement agreement with dental dental concerning the provisions of a fully funded.

Insurance.

What's it called?

Insurance plan for active municipal employees and retirees for the period January 1, 2026 through December 31st, 2026.

So moved.

Well, you voted out of it.

So no, I think that I think you're procedurally correct to do that to vote it out of committee.

Okay.

All in favor?

Taking it out of committee.

Oh, I asked.

Okay, discussion.

I asked.

Did you have any discussion?

Well, I'll just say I'm really glad that we're going to get a new commission, and hopefully, we'll have uh processes in place so that next year we'll have uh a lot more information very early on, and I think that will be beneficial.

Yes, sir.

Uh Madam Chair, may I add some information?

First of all, uh our insurance benefits citywide, particularly the health insurance, is um a significant weight on your general fund.

So our general fund revenues verified are about 105 million.

Our health insurance, and I know we're not talking about health today, but this needs to be discussed for the context of the dental uh and the life that you're considering.

The health insurance is costing us slightly more than 15 million dollars a year off the general fund.

That's a really large number.

It comes out to about six thousand dollars per employee for health coverage, and for anyone who takes the plus one or family, the city pays about $18,000 for those of us who take the plus one.

So you put those two numbers together, and I know we haven't given raises to employees this year, but a good number of employees are being subsidized to the tune of $24,000 a year by the city of Jackson.

Now I know some people would rather have that as pay than insurance, but it's important in a greater uh discussion that our employees understand that they get a lot more than their salary with the health insurance and packages we have.

Having said that, there's a real question as to whether we provide the best benefits we can for our employees and whether the current programs are sustainable.

Certainly, I don't think any of us want to see us spending 20 million dollars a year uh for coverage.

When I came back to the city, I asked early of uh Deborah Whitehead, who's here, somebody I had worked with previously.

What was the status of the insurance advisory committee?

I was told that that committee had been disbanded.

That was one of these committees, and I say this historically, not to um beat a dead horse, but there are certain things that occurred regardless of whether you had Danks, Ditto, Melton, or Johnson as mayor.

And those are the four administrations I'm largely familiar with.

The insurance advisory committee was one of those, and so that committee would come uh together, evaluate things and make recommendations to the city council and the administration.

Uh I went back to Mayor Horn, asked him to re-implement that committee.

He has re-implemented that, and we will be working um to secure the new agent of record uh in 2026 to re-evaluate our health insurance because our contract is up at the end of 2026 on health insurance, and we will also take another look at dental and life insurance.

Now, circling back to where we are now on the dental insurance.

Um, Deborah Whitehead negotiated directly on behalf of the city.

There is about a $2 per pay period increase for the dental coverage.

Uh, there was an alternative dental coverage that would not have been an increase to the employee, but at the same time would have um cut the network dramatically by over half.

And so uh our collective wisdom, uh, Ms.

Whitehead, myself, HR collectively thought it was better to continue offering the same plan where uh people who are using this delta dental insurance and already have relationship with the dentist will know that that insurance will continue to cover.

I won't say that'll be the recommendation next year, but that's the recommendation for this year.

Expect from this insurance advisory committee before our next budget, a series of recommendations on health, life, and dental for all of you to consider as we go through the budget next year.

And our goal internally is to have those recommendations to you mid-year, not on the budget deadline.

We've got to do better than we did this past year.

We also won't have a uh transition of governing authorities next year, which will help us uh for anybody who's been through the transition of governing authorities before Councilman Grizzell, Mr.

President Grizzell, Vice President Hartley, I know you have those years tend to be disruptive.

You have new authorities coming in July 1, and then you have essentially 75 days to pass a budget.

And so there's a lot of decisions crunched into a small time when you're otherwise transitioning the government.

That makes it a difficult year.

Um so our recommendation um we asked uh I asked Ms.

Whitehead to shop for dental coverage uh and see what she could come back with as opposed to trying to engage an agent of record on a short notice.

And this is the proposal that the administration, uh the mayor uh has authorized us to present and that we're presenting, and that's kind of our reasoning for why we've done this and what we intend to do next year.

So you won't be sitting here on a deadline next year wondering why you're on a deadline of just hearing about something.

That won't be the case.

Thank you.

If we can keep um zero commission and lower the cost, then next year look at the same thing also.

We appreciate doing that.

Thank you.

Any other questions to come back?

Madam Chair, we're gonna hear from Ms.

Whitehead.

Uh he just explained it.

She and if you want to hear from her, I would like to hear the process of negotiation, because I have a lot of uh reservation about this today.

State your name for the record.

Deborah Whitehead.

Thank you, Ms.

Whitehead.

If you could just walk us through the whole negotiation.

Um you've been handling this firsthand, and so well, I'm back to rarely.

But uh what we did uh was what we did this year since we did not have an agent of record, and we could not use any information that was submitted to us by the former uh insurance agent.

We contacted United Health, I mean Delta Dental, and asked for quotes without commission included to be submitted directly to the city of Jackson.

So they re uh calculated the rates and submitted directly to the city of Jackson because we couldn't use any rates that was you know given to us.

Why we couldn't?

Because they're not our agent of record.

Their contract ended December 31st of 24.

And I guess there's some clarity we need there too, because you know, we've been given an order that says 2027, and maybe legal can speak to that.

I'm just trying to put everything, make sure it's clear for transparency.

Um a lot of folks to that, and then um the city attorney as well.

So um, President Grizzell, there was some confusion about whether we have an agent of record.

And we pulled two council orders, and there are two council orders which seem to have somewhat inconsistent language.

But the face of the council order has an expiration date for the agent of record.

The second council order allows the then agent of record to receive a $2 per enrollee commission, but that is paid by United Healthcare.

And so, in looking at both of those, um, and I want to be careful about how much I say, so I don't get into attorney client privilege.

So, Mr.

Martin, if I get off base, uh throw some at me.

In going uh in Mr.

Martin and I discussing this, we read the one order as being definitive that the agent of record agreement is over, period.

There's an argument that we should extend that and then deny the two dollar commission.

Mr.

Murray and I were of the opinion that that was in a separate order that had been approved.

And so as long as we are with United Healthcare, the then agent of record should still receive the two dollars per person per enrollee.

And so that's somewhat of a middle ground.

It's neither all pro city, it's certainly not all pro-agent, but we think we have encapsulated what was the spirit of what the council was previously trying to do, which is compensate that agent of record for the efforts they had done at that time and continuing as long as we have that health insurance contract, which we still do.

Okay.

Any other questions?

I'm thinking.

Okay.

Just one.

You had mentioned the advisory board, some type of insurance.

When are you planning on implementing that?

We actually had a meeting set for yesterday afternoon, Mr.

Hartley, and then some fine individual decided it would be a good time to have a public works committee meeting.

And so is that uh there were certain people in this room who attempted to meet uh and others of us were over here, and so I think we are reset for next week.

Next week.

That's the answer.

But we we this is a priority.

Let me say the insurance advisory committee.

Um again, I don't know why I was ever disbanded, but uh insurance is such an important matter to our employees and has such an impact on our bottom line.

That's right.

We realize that committee need to get back up and running, and uh we will be meeting probably twice monthly for the next several months.

Very good then.

Thank you.

And I want to make clear that committee consists of the city attorney, myself, Ms.

Whitehead, uh, other people from HR and someone from finance.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Well, I'm gonna just go say this and we're gonna go ahead and get it to a vote.

Um salaries have been flat.

And I know some folks say what's just two dollars a pay period, or three dollars a pay period.

When you have some folks working $9 and 87 cents, that's lunch.

That can be dinner for some people.

And I just want to be clear that I don't feel like we got the best deal.

I understand Ms.

Whitehead did what she could do, uh, but I still don't think that we got the best deal, and I just don't trust it, and I'm done with that.

Okay, chair.

In terms of trust, the agent, if if there's no commission on it, okay, and the benefits are better with the new plan.

What part don't you trust are the same or better?

What don't you trust?

Well, all the other reasons I've listed before now, and I don't want to get into it now because I mean, you know, but we can go ahead and vote.

Okay.

Just one comment.

I believe with the addition of this advisory group.

We will have it's gonna have input from the personnel.

So from the personnel side and from the management side, and I think they can maybe give us a good way to direct us.

And will you have something uh will we be briefed on it after you'll have a series of meetings?

Absolutely.

Um, we don't intend to bring to you something to vote on.

I think I've said this to y'all on important issues.

I'd like us to have a dialogue before we get to a vote.

Yes.

I don't think we're quite there yet, but I think we're working in that direction.

There's been some things I briefed you on, for example, an executive session that I'll bring back later for a vote.

Uh, we would envision the same thing on this, not necessarily executive session, but briefing you, particularly at work sessions as we go forward.

Because again, there's little that we spend money on in this city that has a more direct hit to the general fund revenue that's a lot of money and insurance.

Yeah.

Well, but based on the salaries, I'm gonna say this.

Based on the salaries that we pay, I think we need to really consider the benefits that we give, and we need to keep the benefits because if somebody gets sick, we need to be able to be a supportive body versus giving them a monthly amount, and then when they're sick, they have nothing.

And on the two dollars, I agree two dollars is a lot for somebody making $9 an hour.

But I think we need to look at ways to come up with maybe cutting some um areas of um consultants, uh, some things that we're doing and put that money directed toward employee benefits.

So I think as a whole, there are a lot of areas that this council can look at financially, and we're gonna be very involved financially as a committee and come back and make recommendations to the executive board, to the mayor, to everybody and the city, because we should not be uh uh talking about eliminating benefits versus a salary.

A salary is something you have for a lifetime.

Benefits is something you have when you need them, and it's sometimes I sell insurance for a living.

People don't realize the importance of it until they need it, and when they don't have it, it's a different story.

And a zero commission is not something that I would want personally at all times, but if it's cutting the cost, I say do it because it's to benefit everybody.

Mr.

Taylorson, yes, sir, madam chair.

You you listed all the the people who will be on this committee.

Would it be possible to have a non-administrative person on that committee?

In terms of lay employee?

Um contracts, but just somebody outside of the mayor's office.

I think we can do that.

Uh, you know, when you started talking about putting somebody like the clerk and counsel on there, we got to make sure that we don't cross uh separation of powers lines since we're supposed to recommend.

I personally work well with the clerk and council, and I think that's an excellent suggestion.

So assuming that's not a separation of powers issue, I would welcome, I would recommend to the mayor putting the clerk of counsel on there.

If that is an issue, I agree.

I think we ought to have a layperson or just one of our lower paid employees in the room who understand we need to educate our employees.

Right.

Our employees need to understand, and I agree, um, Chairman Clay.

I don't think we need to be pitting putting more money in somebody's pocket versus benefits.

The way I poised this around the city is everybody in the city needs to be a meaningful employee who's contributing to getting services to the citizens.

Because we ought to be paying our folks better and keeping these benefits, but we ought to also know that our people are coming here eight to five or seven to three or whatever, and doing what they're supposed to do.

So I I think we can get where we need to go, and I do think a non-administrative person on the committee makes a lot of sense.

Just one final question.

How much are we paying for that plus one?

The city?

18,000 per employee who picks it up.

And currently that's about 550 of our slightly less than 1400 employees.

That's that's a lot of money.

Put it in perspective, the plus one in and of itself costs us in the neighborhood of uh six million dollars.

Okay.

I think we really need to look at these numbers and look at them per person, divide them out and figure out what we're really doing because just talking about a big number is not gonna get it.

Right now, the benefits and the cost of that insurance is a lot.

Don't get me wrong.

But if we look at it on a table with an excel sheet and figure out exactly what we're talking about, we'll understand what's going on.

I think just throwing out a number is not reasonable, and the city pays nothing on this dental policy.

This is strictly the employees.

So I want to represent every employee, and the two dollars may be a lot, but we need to figure out before mid-year why this committee is working, how we can give them a raise.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, that was that was a conversation, I think probably two years ago.

Um I don't I want to be clear out of this is not something I want, would be to not offer what we offer it, but the city not cover the insurance and let each employee make their own personal decision in terms of where they go for you know city insurance, whoever the provider is versus other options so that they can have more money in their pocket.

I know that was a big conversation.

I'm not sure, Drew, do you remember that?

Um really you don't remember that?

I remember coming off and I was early on.

It's probably early on, but um, I didn't realize that we're putting out that amount of money, and some employees may prefer that in a salary again.

I'm not, I don't want that.

I would rather you know have my benefits, but um, that may be something that the council may want to discuss later on too.

With the social economics of a person making nine dollars an hour, we need to really think about what we're saying in terms of benefits, okay.

We really need to sit back and look at it, and right now we're not talking health insurance, so I don't think we even need to discuss that any further until we look at the property level in the city of Jackson, even the employees working, making $9 an hour, a living in property.

So we need to really look at what health insurance means and what it pays for and see if those people qualify for another plan, and with all the cuts with the feds, let's look at the whole health care arena and private insurance is going up, even the Obamacare, et cetera.

So to not offer something, well, this year we don't even have a discussion of it because we're gonna offer it.

So to me, we're wasting discussion until we get the numbers and see what we got.

But we but discuss it as long as you want.

That's how I'm gonna say well, I was gonna I I was gonna say, you know, I think you calling the question.

I mean, let me say this.

I think all of you are seriously concerned about this, and our bigger challenge is none of us control the market.

And we really don't have a lot we can control the market with, or health care costs wouldn't keep going up.

Uh I'm coming up on almost 40 years ago, the time I spent at Princeton, and one of the tasks I was assigned in 1986 was to um evaluate health care costs.

And at that time in 1986, Mississippi didn't have a health care cost problem.

And so I thought that was somewhat of a silly uh errand to have to do.

I look back on that and said, you know, those people at Princeton clearly knew what I couldn't see uh because all we've done over the last 40 years is wrestle with health care costs in this country.

So uh we'll work through this together.

Uh I will recommend to the mayor to appoint a non-administration person to the insurance um advisory committee, and we will look forward to giving you a quarterly report during the first quarter uh or no later than the end of the first quarter of uh 2026.

We're already that's that's go ahead and vote.

Oh, okay.

I thought you were saying he didn't ask.

No for the vote, all in favor of taking it out of committee.

Okay, all in favor, taking it out of committee.

All folks.

Did you get the camp?

So let me just say together.

I think we have to officially wait eight minutes.

Uh I do want to say though, to the five of you that are here.

Thank you for your time today on this, and also thank you for your time today.

Uh, yesterday on public works.

I thought we had a really meaningful discussion yesterday on public works, and um, I appreciate the council giving the administration some time um to come over and visit with y'all outside of a regular council meeting to discuss some of these things that are very important and ultimately land in your lap as the appropriating authority.

So while we had a few minutes between the committee meeting and the official start of the council meeting, I just wanted to say that because I thought we had been productive yesterday and today with this.

Yeah, we have a second second.

We have to do the second item.

Order authorizing the mayor to renew the contract with Medlife to provide life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance coverage to active and retired city employees.

Participate in the self-funded health plan for the period January 1, 2026 through December 31st, 2026.

So moved.

Thank you.

Properly moved and second that we um discuss this item.

Any discussion on this one?

Uh Ms.

Taberson, can you kind of yes?

This is a 10,000 dollar life insurance policy, and the city has offered this.

Uh, I want to say it's 5,000 policy and 10,000 maybe for accidental, but it's a 10,000 dollar cap.

It's been this way for about two decades.

Um, it has turned into what was life insurance two decades ago to essentially a burial insurance now.

Um, and you're lucky to get a burial for 10,000.

Um, and so we're recommending continuing that benefit.

I think we need to look at whether that's a sufficient benefit going forward.

There may be an opportunity um to bundle this and get a better benefit with either uh dental or health going forward, and so we want to look at that as well.

But this is just a small benefit that the city again offers um uh its employees.

One issue I didn't mention on the health insurance also affects the life insurance.

COVID in 2020, 2021, and 2022 has affected our health insurance rates, and it has also affected our number of life insurance claims.

Unfortunately, we lost um historically the number of people we lost in 2020, 21 and 22 was higher than it had been um in other years.

So there is uh all of us are feeling that in some way, shape or form, the fallout from COVID.

Uh just uh one final question on this, this and all other programs will be included in that discussion with the advisory committee.

Yes, sir, Mr.

Hartley.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

All in favor, all opposed, and I misstated it's a 1020 policy, not a 510.

And I misstated it's a 1020 policy, not a 510.

So 10 is your basic um benefit if it's an accidental death, it's 20, but it's the same benefit it's been for the last two decades.

Any other questions or any discussion?

This meeting is adjourned.