Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Finance Health Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks 5‑5 on $750,000 supplemental for self‑funded health insurance; proposal fails
Summary
City finance staff said the self‑funded health insurance fund had a negative balance of roughly $750,000 at Oct. 31, 2024. Council considered two allocation methods for a supplemental appropriation but a motion to approve the administrative‑chargeback allocation failed in a 5‑5 tie.
The Jefferson City Council voted on a supplemental appropriation to cover a 2024 shortfall in the city’s self‑funded health insurance fund but the measure failed on a 5‑5 tie.
What staff reported: Finance director Missy Perry told council the self‑funded health insurance fund had a negative balance of about $750,000 at Oct. 31, 2024. Perry said audited FY2023 figures showed a $430,000 positive balance carried into FY2024; after final FY2024 activity the fund was in the negative and the supplemental was intended to restore a zero balance for FY2024 closing. Perry also presented an estimated available general fund balance (after reappropriations) of about $8,002,242 (22.22 percent) before consideration of the supplemental; she said the proposed supplemental would reduce the estimated available fund balance to roughly 20.12 percent.
Options considered: Council discussed two allocation methods. Option A would allocate the $750,000 supplemental proportionally by the number of approved employees in each fund. Option B would allocate by the city’s administrative chargeback percentages tied to operating budgets; staff noted Option B reflects recent changes in administrative allocations.
Council action and outcome: Council temporarily suspended rules to consider the item the same night. Councilman Schwartz moved to approve Option B (administrative chargeback allocation); the motion was seconded. The motion failed on a roll‑call tie, 5 in favor and 5 opposed, so the supplemental appropriation did not pass.
Why council debated allocation method: Council members said the choice affects which funds absorb the shortfall (general fund, parks, parking, wastewater, airport, transit). Several councilors argued the allocation method should be consistent with the city’s financial policy; others pressed for a review of the health insurance program and a budget committee process to address long‑term sustainability rather than one‑time fixes.
Ending: Council and staff agreed further action will be required; members discussed reconvening a budget committee to review long‑term solutions including benefit design, reserves and potential contributions. Perry said the $750,000 request addresses FY2024 only and does not resolve FY2025 actuarial or claims pressure.
