Educators warn 24.7% insurance spike would amount to pay cuts, urge district budget offset

At its June 11 meeting, Tahoe Truckee Unified School District employees and union negotiators told the board that projected health insurance premium increases — an average of about 24.7% across plans — will translate into substantial cuts in take-home pay and could push some staff to leave.

“I want to address an issue that strikes at the core of our members’ well-being,” said Paula Bossler, lead negotiator for the Tahoe Truckee Education Association, during the public-comment period. Bossler said the proposed increases include a districtwide average of 24.7% for health premiums and a 5% rise for dental and vision, and urged the district to include compensation that offsets the added employee costs.

Bossler and other commenters read plan-by-plan examples. For the high-deductible HDP1 employee-only plan she cited approximate monthly premiums rising from $750 to $851, and for the PPO 3 employee-only plan from about $1,200 to $1,400. For family coverage, Bossler cited the PPO 3 family premium increasing from about $3,203 to about $3,771 per month — an increase of $567 per month or roughly $6,810 per year. Using the numbers presented, she said, the family-plan increase could equal a 7.2% reduction in take-home pay for a mid-career teacher making about $95,000.

David Stakely, a former TTEA lead negotiator who also spoke, described variation across plans: "The 24% ... was presented represents the average increase across all units and plans. It is a larger increase for plans that are plus‑1 and families ... some plans are gonna increase, like, close to 40% ... and that equates to an increase in cost of hundreds of dollars per month." Theresa Palito, a long‑time district employee, said her estimate of the increase on her family plan would leave her take‑home pay roughly the same as it was a decade ago.

District staff said they are actively looking for alternatives. Todd Rivera, assistant superintendent and chief business officer, told the board staff had issued a request for proposals and had begun outreach to other large pools and direct carriers. Rivera said several large pools had declined to quote and that the district had not yet received alternative proposals; he said timing and the district’s benefit year complicate the market search. He added that because of the district’s health-and-welfare cap, much of the carrier cost increase would fall to employees and could push some individuals’ out‑of‑pocket increases toward 40–50%.

"We will leave no stone unturned trying to figure this out," Rivera said. He emphasized the district understands the impact and continued work is underway to seek solutions, at the bargaining table and in benefits procurement.

Board members who spoke in the meeting described the increase as alarming and urged staff to explore all options, including alternative carriers or pool structures. No formal board action on benefits was taken at the meeting; Rivera said the district will continue negotiating and pursuing proposals and will bring options to the board.

If adopted by the carrier in full, the increases presented at the meeting would be borne largely by employees because of the district benefit cap; speakers warned of delayed care, reduced essentials, second jobs, or departures from the district if costs are not mitigated.

The board took no vote on benefits at the June 11 meeting; staff said procurement outreach and bargaining work is ongoing and that alternative options would be presented as available.