Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DeKalb staff brief committee on employee benefits benchmarking; commissioners ask cost estimates for extending coverage
Summary
A county peer‑group study compared DeKalb County's health plans with regional peers; staff highlighted $125 million in annual county health‑care spending, a county life insurance benefit equal to 2.25× salary and a zero‑premium HSA option for sworn police. Commissioners asked staff to return with cost estimates to extend similar benefits to firefighters and other public‑safety staff.
DeKalb County staff on Tuesday presented a peer benchmarking study of the county's employee health and wellness plans, telling the Board of Commissioners' IRPS Committee that while plan design has remained comparatively stable, total health‑care costs remain a major budget line.
The presenter said DeKalb offers five plans—three self‑funded plans and two fully insured Kaiser plans—and that while out‑of‑pocket limits are higher on some DeKalb plans, the county provides a choice that staff described as competitive with peer counties. "Out of the last nine years, we've only changed plan design once," the presenter said, and the county has absorbed most premium increases.
Key benefits staff highlighted included a county‑paid basic life insurance benefit equal to 2.25 times an employee's salary and a zero‑premium option for sworn police who elect the health savings account, which staff said includes family coverage. The presenter said the county pays roughly $125,000,000 annually for employee health care.
Commissioner Shakira Johnson asked whether the zero‑premium option could be extended to firefighters; staff said they have previously run similar calculations and can provide cost estimates, and commissioners asked that staff return with separate cost breakdowns for fire, for public safety including the sheriff's office, and for a broader 'public safety' scenario so funding sources can be tracked. Committee members said they want clear line‑item comparisons so the board can weigh recruitment/retention benefits against budget tradeoffs.
Next steps: Staff will provide requested cost analyses and may return to the committee with more detailed recommendations; no formal vote was taken on benefits during the meeting.
