Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-06 Chapter 172 Employee Retiree Insurance and Benefits Board Meeting Chapter 172 Employee Retiree Insurance and Benefits Board Meeting Minutes Thursday, August 10, 2006 The Chapter172 Employee Retiree Insurance and Benefits Board Meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm by Robert Swanagan. Attendees: Clark Askins 172 Board Member Karen Beerman 172 Board Member Michael Dolby 172 Board Member George Van Dyke 172 Board Member Robert Swanagan Staff Representative Absent: Pat Rothermel 172 Board Member Buddy Jacobs 172 Board Member Guest: Neal Welch, Consultant Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Marlene Rigby City of La Porte Employee Randy Cernosek City of La Porte Employee Matt Daeumer City of La Porte Employee Martha Gillett City of La Porte Employee Jose Molina Retiree Mike Edgmon K. Shurman Robert Swanagan opened the meeting by thanking all of the guest present for taking an interest in the activities of the 172 Board by attending the meeting. The Meeting Minutes for the July 31, 2006 meeting were reviewed for approval. After review of the minutes Board Member, Clark Askins made a motion that the minutes be approved as written. Board Member Karen Beerman 2nd the motion. The motion carried. Robert Swanagan then passed out written information from 172 Board Member Buddy Jacobs. Buddy was out of town but had prepared his comments for the other board members on the meeting discussion topics. Robert included a statement that Buddy Jacobs had given him verbally because Buddy had not listed it in his written comments. The statement was: "In consideration ofthe One- time deferral can the spouse be added if the retiree is allowed to re-enter the program?" Discussion Topic #1 Flexible Spending Account: Michael Dolby asked Neal Welch, "Can it be rolled over?" Neal answered," no it could not." Michael asked if there was a Cap on the amount? Neal indicated there was a range of $2,000 to $3,000. George van Dyke asked, "If we use Debit Cards, will it be passed on to the employees, or will the City pay the cost of $5.50. Also would there be an impact on Premium Cost? Who would absorb the $5.50 cost? Neal Welch answered, " The $5.50 cost would be something that would have to be decided by Council and there would not be an impact on Premium Cost. He also indicated there is a norm of about 15% participation in Flexible Spending Accounts by employees. There would be a requirement for re-enrollment each year, with a start date of January 1, 2007. To educate our employees we could start communicating with employees in October about FSA and how they work. Michael Dolby made a Motion that we recommend to City Council that Flexible Spending Accounts with the Debit Cards be added to our plan. Karen Beerman 2nd the motion. The Motion carried. Discussion Topic # 2 Spouse Eligibility: It is N/ A because Humana has no way of administering. Therefore, it is a moot point. Discussion Topic #3 Individual Child Premium Load: Because of the $126.00 average cost per child we do not recommend it. We could make a 5th tier in a 4 tier structure with specific language that says dependent children can remain on the insurance to age 25 if they are a student and not married. Discussion Topic #410% Cost Savings with Plan Design Changes: The severe increase in cost for deductibles in each of the four plans would be so significant that a 10% Cost Savings with Plan Design Changes could not be recommended by 172 Board Members. Discussion Topic #5 Deferred Retiree Coverage: Board members recommended a one-time deferral at the discretion of the Retiree with a spousal provision as outlined in COBRA. Which is: If a Retiree is carrying their spouse at retirement then the spouse could re-enter when the retiree re-enters. Currently there are no rules about spouses in the City's plan. George van Dyke made a Motion that we recommend this to Council. Clark Askins 2nd the Motion. The Motion carried. Discussion Topic #6 Retiree Over/Under 65 Calculations: The Board recommends to City Council that it remain as it is and not go to a two tier plan. George Van Dyke made a Motion that we leave it as it is. Karen Beerman 2nd the Motion. The Motion carried. Discussion Topic# 7 Recruitment Incentive: The Board recommends both as potential Recruitment Incentives with the City Council determining which one it wants to adopt, or a combination of both. Michael Dolby made a Motion that we send both to City Council. Clark Askins 2nd the Motion. The Motion carried. Discussion Topic # 8 Retiree Calculations: The 172 Board recommends the current method of making the Retiree Calculations continue with clarification of language regarding City budgeted cost and coverage % discount amount applies only for retirees not dependents. Also, the proposed Calculator that Neal is developing be implemented to allow any employee to get an estimate of their insurance cost and their dependents cost at the current year budgeted City cost, and for one additional year. Karen Beerman made a Motion we continue current calculations with the specified clarifications. Robert Swanagan 2nd the Motion. The Motion carried. Robert Swanagan again thanked all of the guest for attending the 172 meeting and encouraged their attendance at future meetings. Robert Swanagan adjourned the meeting at 7:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, K.L. ~^r~~~ Robert Swana;~ ~;;an~ ~~es Staff Approved this 19th day of February, 2007. CHAPTER 172 EMPLOYEE RETIREE INSURANCE AND BENEFITS BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL FROM THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2006 MEETING: 1. Recommends that Flexible Spending Accounts with the Debit Cards be added to our plan. 2. We do not recommend the Individual Child Premium Load. We could make a 5th tier in a 4 tier structure with specific language that says dependent children can remain on the insurance to age 25 if they are a student and not married. 3. We do not recommend the 10% Cost Savings with Plan Design Changes 4. Recommends a one-time deferral at the discretion of the Retiree with a spousal provision as outlined in COBRA. Which is: If a Retiree is carrying their spouse at retirement then the spouse could re-enter when the retiree re-enters. 5. Recommends that Retiree OverlUnder 65 Calculation not be used and remain as it is. 6. Recommends both Incentive Plans as potential Recruitment Incentives with the City Council determining which one it wants to adopt, or a combination of both. 7. Recommends the current method of making the Retiree Calculations continue with clarification of language regarding City budgeted cost and that the coverage % discount amount applies only for retirees, not dependents. Also, the proposed Calculator that Neal is developing be implemented to allow any employee to be able to get an estimate of their insurance cost and their dependents cost at the current year budgeted City cost and for one additional year.