Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff accommodation proposed after employee requests flexibility on health insurance
Summary
A city staff member asked to be reimbursed for the city’s employer portion of health insurance after moving out of the plan area; the mayor and council discussed administrative accommodation and documentation requirements but raised questions about precedent and contract obligations.
A Woodland Hills staff member asked the council to allow the city’s standard employer contribution to be paid as a reimbursement so the employee could obtain private coverage outside the city plan. The request arose during a work session discussion of the tentative FY2026 budget and other personnel topics.
The staff member, identified in the meeting as Chris, said his current location and the available plan network made the city-provided plan impractical and asked that the city reimburse the employer portion so he could “go obtain my own health insurance.” Chris said the city currently pays about $1,872.44 per employee toward health insurance and asked for that amount as a reimbursement if he purchases an outside policy. He also referenced the city’s $3,000 contribution to an HSA under the current arrangement.
Mayor (online) indicated he believed the matter could be handled administratively and asked that the employee submit proof of purchase for reimbursement: “I do think that your recommendation that you, provide proof of purchase, is a good call, and I think that we should do that,” he said. Council members raised questions about precedent, asking whether other employees could request the same accommodation and whether withdrawing from the group plan could have contractual consequences for the city under the insurer’s rules.
Staff agreed to check the city’s insurance contract for penalties or other contractual issues that might arise if an employee leaves the group plan outside open enrollment. Chris said the change would not increase the city’s budgeted cost because the city’s $1,872.44 employer share would be paid as a reimbursement instead of through the group plan; he asked only that the city continue to pay that employer share amount.
Why this matters: The request implicates city administrative policy, employee benefits, and potential contractual obligations to insurers. Council members expressed support for flexibility but asked staff to confirm there would be no contractual penalty and whether the employee handbook or the council resolution governing benefits needs revision to preserve consistency and fairness.
Ending: Staff will review the insurance contract and the city’s benefit resolutions and return with recommended administrative language or policy amendments. The council signaled openness to reimbursing the employer share provided proper documentation is submitted and no contract penalties exist.
