Iowa County supervisors debate raises, keep health insurance while exploring high-deductible option

Iowa County Board of Supervisors — During a regular meeting, county supervisors and staff spent the bulk of the session on budget planning for the next fiscal year, focusing on whether to grant pay raises, how to handle a large increase in health insurance renewal rates, and how changes to fund balances would affect county levy rates.

County finance staff and supervisors said they have already reworked some department budgets to plan 0% raises for nonunion employees. A county staff presenter explained that health-insurance claims had risen substantially this year, driving a roughly 13.5% renewal increase in the county’s plan. The presenter said stop‑loss claims and more inpatient claims were major cost drivers and noted that roughly 80% of insured members had less than $5,000 in claims while a small share of members accounted for much of the increase.

The presentation detailed options for changing benefit design. The staff presenter described a high-deductible plan (example figures discussed: $3,300 individual/$6,000 family) as an optional offering that could reduce renewal pressure, but cautioned that adoption would require significant education. The presenter recommended offering the high‑deductible plan as an option and surveying department heads before any change. "You guys just want me to email department heads to see if there is super interest," the presenter said (presenter listed in the meeting transcript as the insurance presenter).

Supervisors debated tradeoffs between maintaining current insurance benefits and granting pay increases. One supervisor summarized the tradeoff this way: keeping the existing health insurance would likely put more net dollars into employees’ pockets than a modest across‑the‑board raise, because the county’s contribution to premiums is a significant part of many employees’ total compensation. County staff repeatedly cautioned that some planned purchases and known upcoming expenses (for example, road equipment and ambulance replacements) required conservative budgeting.

On levy and fund‑balance planning, staff described a draft approach that would use a portion of the general fund carryover (a projected higher ending fund balance from the current year) to reduce the supplemental levy rate. Staff provided preliminary calculations showing several scenarios and said the numbers could change once outstanding department budgets (sheriff, public health, conservation) were finalized.

Supervisors directed staff to proceed cautiously: do not make immediate plan design changes that would complicate payroll and benefits administration while the budget is being finalized. The board agreed to ask department heads whether employees would be interested in a voluntary high‑deductible option and to delay any final decisions until the next budget review cycle. Staff also said they had already prepared a budget amendment to move some revenues and expenses for the courthouse project and would circulate updates to supervisors as numbers firmed up.

The meeting record shows no final vote altering health‑insurance plan design or benefits at this session; instead, the board recorded discussion, staff direction, and follow-up tasks to gather more information and confirm final numbers before formal decisions.

Ending — Supervisors scheduled follow-up budget work and asked staff to finalize outstanding department figures so the board can adopt levy and budget decisions at an upcoming meeting.