[{"_1":2,"_122":-5,"_123":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98,110],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6086050,"mediaKeyId","2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46","parentId",2900443,"title","Commission debates draft resolution on weapons for county employees; seeks clearer criteria","audioSeconds",375,"startMs",2489200,"endMs",2865000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46&start=2489&end=2865","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46/thumbnail_2489200.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6086050/Madison-County/Georgia/Commission-debates-draft-resolution-on-weapons-for-county-employees-seeks-clearer-criteria","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086050-6c1de59382fff2072d566c98b5b41b7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775249106&Signature=j34N9xBtHwTL7EjwhHZ4aC8utYK3XoCnSf~lNPjtZptZ5kXXL2AVVFkMOfXBYl41x6kH5MetgrY5e0h0oi-klOQX1kMqnVmemfF9HxczCat6A8y63Mrq~OS0bEY-6~IqZ3iwTR9tQfgoPpePohEoPSEHFqCAn15o7q9aQsirfOSL2WzOCLj6CmLPZQevYDklkJaYVNZp67KlIkHF~6iGtyZp9gRw8gLMhNDN~XUYJz-aBn72Bbp25fQD9P~i60kaknVm8q5jz3lJCjWJxt9RHLFRZXK4X1F7sucSLhuoadPldUDCKziZS95iprRIbqJCQAeAqGepOUklCS-n6l6Wgg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-08T19:45:13.23Z","article","Madison County commissioners discussed a draft resolution that would regulate employees' possession and use of weapons on county property and while acting in the scope of their employment. The draft, modeled in part on other counties' language, would prohibit non-law-enforcement employees from carrying or using weapons on duty except under specified exceptions.

The board's discussion centered on liability, insurance coverage, and how exceptions would be identified and managed. One commissioner noted past advice that liability coverage historically applied only to law-enforcement officers and said the county's insurer (ACCG) may have broader potential coverage but that this should be confirmed. Commissioners raised concerns about who would be authorized (the draft allowed the chairman discretion to authorize \"other employees\") and asked for objective criteria to govern such authorizations. ‘‘If you're going to allow people other than POST-certified officers to carry weapons, how are you going to control, regulate, and that liability?’’ a commissioner asked.

Several commissioners said they had constitutional or policy reservations and emphasized that facility regulation (for example, courthouse security, which the sheriff controls) is a separate question from employee-on-duty conduct. The board also discussed positions that might require non-firearm tools or protective devices (animal control, code enforcement) and whether those positions should be explicitly addressed.

Commissioners requested additional work and suggested including other board members and the sheriff in follow-up conversations. They asked staff to draft objective criteria for exceptions, to clarify scope language (on duty/in scope of employment), and to consult with legal counsel and insurance carriers before returning the resolution for further consideration. No formal vote was held.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/7/2025 Madison County BOC ASWS","oneSentenceSummary","Board members discussed a draft resolution to regulate employee possession and use of weapons while on duty, raised liability and exception concerns, and asked staff to return with more objective criteria and input from other stakeholders.","taxTitle","Madison County, Georgia","taxId",28540,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6086055,"Commission considers probate-court technology fee resolution; vote deferred",102,2278050,2380850,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46&start=2278&end=2380","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46/thumbnail_2278050.jpg","/articles/6086055/Madison-County/Georgia/Commission-considers-probate-court-technology-fee-resolution-vote-deferred","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086055-8e3d8e9abe798e1c07dac3233cf0ac6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775249106&Signature=dP5AR8~PVu8goauoOCIQwjdEKMRCdyiEOpUZoC5mEYY9gENEgUXw8HxUZEKqGpEvNSo9bGFPvHxmPFer03pPM6~YJ8kjFx09kd0DdFhqgDSs3pi68GdvEN~-kUZiLpd~SXZIwkKcyMmpvL8-qIQP3ueQMtYhOehOsk0n-oC4trEHuvPExXRSdZVLrNOvcBIpqFXWP5VQKRIslwe0BqB0dTMj3RZjiPi~0mI6pbiM4t3~oU7~gZBgf9EWfVWEid3gcV-GL2ClfvQuBxVa8iY3daDxVZ2Tt18clsESuNRQjG6YCG1aALEYiViR8cL3eVHMBspnba-LUllqt6gZXpZPOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners discussed a proposed resolution — requested by Judge Cross — to create a probate-court technology fee modeled on similar local acts in other counties. Staff said the draft mirrors language used elsewhere and that a state representative had been approached about carrying the proposal to the General Assembly.

Board members asked several procedural questions: whether the fee should be set as a flat dollar amount or a percentage, whether the proposed $5 cap and a 10-year period reflected local practice or merely tracked other counties, and whether the resolution should reference a specific enabling local-act code. Staff said the draft followed previously adopted language from other counties and that the proposal would be a local act rather than part of general law.

Commissioners agreed to postpone formal action and to have staff gather additional information and options for the next meeting so members could ask follow-up legal and policy questions before voting. No vote on the resolution was held at the meeting.","The board discussed a proposed local act to create a probate-court technology fee (modeled on other counties) and agreed to take up a formal vote at a future meeting after staff and legal review.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6086060,"Commission discusses beer-and-wine application for Omni Colbert; staff seeks clearer address information",175,2055680,2230860,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46&start=2055&end=2230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46/thumbnail_2055680.jpg","/articles/6086060/Madison-County/Georgia/Commission-discusses-beer-and-wine-application-for-Omni-Colbert-staff-seeks-clearer-address-information","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086060-c47fc9c95e114d529974e8c020ac9d95/orig.mp4?Expires=1775249106&Signature=AnjpF7ZrHiUrDJh7BQT-8st7jCriEKVlDANav1h6SnU3oJ~MzrrJIFORFk~1GGJ2HGoXG66EBMfxYe8yXEoU-X244hYlDIZFVG6rPUT6I2qrlQSV0Yndy3eo9gvWuDy9j69-cILq1GvygGGdVK8XRJ2I0oTIGaD11ujLVrNjYmjby1pY-BCZLwZnlncYnvQAkMEjI~ALb45ss5y8VdYvkF~9ei-HiUJaXqPFZFzC18WxoQng9~VjvgR7aSGTePGII9lnbLTQe~EK0Rzu46EtziLMmPEqvttlozMhTLfeBHwW~AqeXF4Z7D2nEA~Rlo5rfctw8Pa7uUOYOslwDUBMpA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","County staff briefed commissioners on a new beer-and-wine application for a business called Omni Colbert. Staff said the owner had completed the required application materials but that the county was waiting on the applicant's public-advertisement materials before proceeding with final processing.

Commissioners and staff raised an implementation question: when a single building houses multiple businesses, the licensing paperwork should include a clearer facility/location descriptor and, where applicable, the trade or assumed business name. One commissioner asked whether the license should be tied to a specific location; staff said the application currently captures owner/registrant information and that the office would review whether the form should require both a store name and the precise location in future filings.

Staff noted that background checks must be run on license-holders and that licensing staff will verify criminal-history requirements for the named license holder (not a trade name alone). The board asked staff to review the application form and consider adding a distinct field for facility location to avoid future confusion about addresses and mailings. No formal vote was taken.","County staff said an application from a new owner for a beer-and-wine license is complete but advertisement and a clearer location descriptor are pending; commissioners asked for licensing forms to capture business/trade-name and exact facility location.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6086065,"Madison County approves three residential rezoning requests",1111,753430,1864860,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46&start=753&end=1864","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46/thumbnail_753430.jpg","/articles/6086065/Madison-County/Georgia/Madison-County-approves-three-residential-rezoning-requests","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086065-a5195b446cccbec0a186ba081e3ce667/orig.mp4?Expires=1775249106&Signature=S6l100Qmta5x7l3Gr4jaAarJrnku3Me-PQRP1wbuuN8hw1fH7HK2zoLSXS7~l12lcItm9eePdUOoqUKMUtQREQpp8YXirNfODBG06AjZX3uw~kqBrtHKnyWIJ2FC-ahic~xvL6eLHUhBnF6t2iSphWMoPpNeeE0V79ky~0Q9KEXPK-I1x9NwBXsteds~X80MKqa4P9aUDjV69jfMvXEIPUz9es3UqLOg7oOz9kRDV5NWDUpr4WhqyTniPw1IvtkESwVkD5ruMooFe~P79NhyQVZ-ObjTh~ZtJLpWBLtTO788SnQQ4zvLGdSiB4wUh4unGLdRGug5O-sZQuVNn0PKOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Madison County commissioners approved three separate rezoning requests for residential properties after hearing applicants and receiving unanimous recommendations from the county planning and zoning commission.

The first request, from Ronald Vaughn, asked to rezone about 9.52 acres from A1 to AR to permit a property split into two tracts (4 acres and 5.52 acres); the planning and zoning commission recommended approval 5–0 and the board approved the request after a public hearing with no speakers for or against.

The second request, from George and Susan Warwick (represented in the hearing by Joyce Warwick), sought to rezone approximately 7.16 acres from A1 to AR to allow an accessory dwelling unit for a child. The planning commission recommended approval 5–0, and the board voted to approve the request after public hearing; no speakers objected.

The third request, filed by Soma Investment Inc. (represented by Alex Osorio/Alfonso), asked to rezone 5 acres from A2 to AR to allow an existing mobile home to remain as a concessional dwelling for family use. The planning commission recommended approval 5–0; commissioners discussed prior enforcement activity related to the property and concluded that the rezone question was separate from habitability or code-enforcement matters, then voted to approve the rezoning.

All three matters included public hearings in which no members of the public spoke in favor or opposition at the board hearing. Planning and zoning documents and staff presentations were cited during the board discussion. Applicants asked county staff about water and access questions and were directed to follow up with the county water and road departments for technical follow-up. Each rezoning will be documented in county land records.","By unanimous votes, the commission approved three rezoning requests to allow lot splits, an accessory dwelling, and a hardship mobile home to remain; all three had unanimous planning-commission recommendations.",{"_33":111,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":112,"_41":113,"_43":114,"_45":115,"_47":116,"_49":117,"_51":118,"_53":119,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":120,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":121,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6086070,"Madison County reviews options to limit employee health-insurance renewal hike",665,2480,667560,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46&start=2&end=667","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2900443-1a9a2a9ba83cbfa9d0669d59e0ba9a46/thumbnail_2480.jpg","/articles/6086070/Madison-County/Georgia/Madison-County-reviews-options-to-limit-employee-health-insurance-renewal-hike","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6086070-878189892e7afb2ddc0e08d7c36a2ca6/orig.mp4?Expires=1775249106&Signature=USAk0ilajMlps~p1ZScGW8LpP4fufr9z539VJ397Jo78~hFGxrZ6lm3Y-BAbAoaYA5h4EnmbB3PC1Zw~tOwN30dxp159TYUqFBidaDzPCD58eOyS5A0OZndw1XVbTb80PPtEr0uEvR7ZRBy2P~mpTHtG-I-d~h5m7pRAudK57l-xBkfUWK7hs432RcQG46BGB3H8cj-95ssrcIi~r8k9qXOxIlIjgrnlWJCxA39jQNqSfaE2BvztlDHjV1YiLSU23GQu3gKVRG56y7f2isgAtS4z5worsK7vLnU~HAwrfIH8wRh9kJJGErCuDqx1Izq5By69Xduzl8sqPhWfWpfoQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Madison County commissioners and staff reviewed health insurance renewal options after carriers initially proposed a 16% increase, with consultants saying they negotiated that down to about 6% across plans.

The county’s benefits consultant told the commission that the carrier’s original 16% renewal would have brought the county’s plans closer to a 74% loss ratio and said the negotiated 6% would lower the county’s exposure. The consultant said the firm prepared two options for the board to consider: a plan-rated approach that applies different changes depending on enrollment in each plan, and a flat 6% increase across all three plan tiers. “We negotiated that down to about 6% across the board,” the consultant said.

Those two options matter because one of the county’s plans — the “local plus” plan — was described by the consultant as currently running roughly an 88% loss ratio, which the consultant characterized as an 11% cost reduction versus current claims. Under the plan-rated option, if enrollment shifts toward the local-plus plan (which has narrower out-of-network benefits but stronger in-network rates), the county’s overall cost could fall; conversely, if enrollment shifts away from that plan, total costs could exceed the flat 6% scenario.

The consultant gave a high-level estimate that moving from a 16% increase to a negotiated 6% would save about $230,000 compared with the initial 16% proposal, based on current enrollment. The consultant also said the flat-6% option leaves no enrollment risk to the county: “There’s 0 risk in option 2 of anything. You know what you’re getting. It’s gonna be a 6% increase across the board.”

County staff and several attendees asked how the local-plus plan’s network affects members’ access and out-of-pocket costs. The consultant said the local-plus plan is in-network only and benefits members whose providers participate in that network; if more members use in-network providers, negotiated rates can reduce claims and place downward pressure on future renewals. The consultant added that true emergencies are treated as in-network for the purposes of coverage determinations, but acknowledged there can be gray areas when claims are retrospectively reviewed.

Commissioners and staff also asked about employees who are Medicare-eligible. The consultant said group rates apply to all active employees and the county cannot create a separate, lower group tier strictly for Medicare-eligible active employees; however, if employees obtain Medicare and use the county plan as secondary coverage, actual claims paid by the county plan could fall and that may affect next year’s renewal.

Staff said dental and vision renewals with UnitedHealthcare were negotiated as a flat 6% across the board. The consultant and staff said they are working with the county to explore wellness programs (including medication- and program-based weight-loss interventions) and other long-term strategies — including alternate funding arrangements such as partial self-insurance — to reduce future claim growth.

Staff committed to provide enrollment-specific cost tables for the other two plans and to give employees tools during open enrollment to check whether their primary care provider is in-network. The consultant said plan-by-plan detail was included in the slides presented to the commission and that benefits staff would follow up individually with employees during enrollment.","County staff and an outside consultant presented two renewal approaches after negotiating a proposed 16% increase down to roughly 6%, and described how employee enrollment choices could shift the county’s final cost.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission debates draft resolution on weapons for county employees; seeks clearer criteria

Commission considers probate-court technology fee resolution; vote deferred

Commission discusses beer-and-wine application for Omni Colbert; staff seeks clearer address information

Madison County approves three residential rezoning requests

Madison County reviews options to limit employee health-insurance renewal hike