Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County authorizes RFP to explore private Minnesota PFML options
Summary
Crow Wing County authorized Human Resources to issue an RFP seeking private-plan proposals for Minnesota’s Paid Family and Medical Leave program, with staff noting the employer may be required to cover at least half the state plan cost and that implementation will require in‑house administration work.
Crow Wing County authorized its Human Resources department to issue a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit private‑plan options for Minnesota’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, which becomes effective Jan. 1, 2026.
Amy of Human Resources told the board the statute allows employers to choose either the state‑administered plan or a private plan that meets or exceeds the state benefit standard; the RFP will gather plan designs and pricing for the county to consider. "PFML allows employers the option to elect either the state administered plan or a private plan offered by insurance carriers that are approved by the state of Minnesota," Amy said.
County staff discussed early cost estimates and administrative implications. A county official noted the state plan is currently estimated at about 0.88% of annual payroll and that the law requires employers to pay at least half of that cost, which the official estimated at roughly $200,000 for the county payroll. The Human Resources presenter said there is no cost to issuing the RFP and no obligation to select a private plan.
Board action and vote: Commissioner Franzen moved to authorize Human Resources to conduct the RFP; Commissioner Lubcke seconded. The board approved the motion by roll call with all members voting Aye in the transcript.
Implementation questions raised during the discussion included how PFML applications will coordinate with existing county FMLA processes, whether employees will use paid time off to supplement benefits and how much internal administration the county will need to perform even if a private vendor is selected. Amy described the state plan and private‑plan difference primarily as a design and vendor choice and said staff will return with cost comparisons and plan details after the RFP responses are evaluated.
The RFP process is intended to satisfy Minnesota Statute 471.6161 as cited by staff; the county will use the responses to determine whether a private plan would be beneficial before making a plan election.
