Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lavaca County tables supplemental-insurance broker selection; approves pension rate and shortens health plan waiting period
Summary
After presentations from two vendors, Lavaca County commissioners tabled selection of a supplemental-insurance broker, approved continuing the TCDRS contribution at 17% for the 2026 plan year and changed the county health insurance waiting period from date of hire to 30 days while moving COBRA administration to BenefitConnect.
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lavaca County Commissioners on a June 2025 regular meeting heard two five-minute presentations about voluntary supplemental insurance and then voted to delay choosing a broker while seeking employee input. They also approved continuing the Texas County & District Retirement System (TCDRS) contribution at 17% for the 2026 plan year and changed the county health-insurance waiting period from the date of hire to 30 days, with COBRA administration moved to BenefitConnect.
The presentations came from Higginbotham Public Sector and Foundation Benefits. Frank Hedmonic of Higginbotham told the court the firm’s voluntary-benefits cooperative covers nonmedical products "from a digit dental, vision, all the way down to identity theft" and said the cooperative’s goal is "to build better benefits at a lower cost." He also said many products are offered through payroll deduction and that some rates are guaranteed for two to three years.
Jonathan Davis of Foundation Benefits said his firm has served the county for more than 25 years and emphasized local presence, noting a Hallettville office and in-person assistance for county employees. "We have been your provider for a little over 25 years," Davis said, and told the court that, at present, the carrier Reliance Standard is used for claims processing and that there will be no rate increase for the coming year within the guaranteed issue period.
After the presentations the court moved to delay a selection. Judge made the motion to table approval of a supplemental-insurance broker for the county beginning Oct. 1, 2025; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Precinct 3 and passed with the court voting to table the item pending further employee feedback. Judge asked staff to distribute a brief email survey to employees with county email addresses so staff can assess employee preferences before the court selects a vendor.
On retirement funding, the court reviewed the TCDRS actuarial assessment and approved no change to the current plan-year contribution rate. Commissioner Precinct 4 moved and Commissioner Precinct 2 seconded a motion to continue the contribution at 17% for the TCDRS 2026 plan year; the motion passed.
On health-plan administration, the court considered two related items that the Court Advisory Committee previously reviewed. The committee recommended changing the health-insurance waiting period from the date of hire to a 30-day wait and adopting BenefitConnect as the COBRA administrator. The court approved both changes on a motion by Commissioner Precinct 3, seconded by Commissioner Precinct 4. During discussion a commissioner asked about preexisting-condition clauses; staff did not identify a preexisting-condition exclusion at the meeting and said they would follow up if necessary.
Why this matters: those decisions affect the timing and administration of employee health coverage, county payroll procedures and how employees access voluntary supplemental products. The tabling decision preserves time for employee input before committing to a single supplemental-insurance broker.
The court recorded no immediate cost to the county for the voluntary supplemental products (they are payroll-deduction products). The TCDRS contribution remains a budgeted payroll expense at 17% for the coming plan year; the waiting-period change may affect short-term employer enrollment administration and potential temporary COBRA requests, which the court said it would consider case by case.
Looking ahead, the court instructed staff to circulate an employee survey and to return the broker decision at a later meeting after the court reviews employee preferences and any follow-up pricing or contract clarifications.

