Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates employee insurance cost-share options; asks staff for fiscal impact scenarios
Summary
The Campton Hills board reviewed multiple health-insurance cost-sharing proposals — including bifurcated 10/15/15/20 splits and flat-percentage proposals (12.5%, 15%, 20%) — and asked staff to provide dollar roll-ups by the current employee census and alternate scenarios to inform the April budget hearing.
Russ presented several options for how the village could split health-insurance premiums with employees, showing both a bifurcated (10% single / 15% spouse / 15% child / 20% family) and flat-percentage models (examples: 12.5%, 15%, 20% across the board). He said premiums will include a recently announced increase of roughly 10.4% and walked trustees through how a blended approach would apply the lower percentage to a base single premium and a higher percentage to the remaining amount for additional coverage.
"If you look at this scenario where we were told 10, 15, and 20% ... the employee would pay 10% on the single coverage portion and then 15% on the remainder for employee-and-spouse coverage," Russ explained while showing example premium dollar amounts.
Trustees raised fairness questions for single employees versus family coverage, and several asked for clearer budget roll-ups. Trustee Nick said he would like a maximum and a goal ("we'd love to see these at 10% but we're not willing to go above 20%") and requested total current-year health costs and projected costs under each scenario so the board can evaluate the budget impact. The police chief and other trustees said the 10/15/15/20 structure "is not out of line" with other municipalities and that blended allocations can be more favorable to employees, but also more complex to administer.
Trustee Janet asked staff to prepare scenarios that roll the proposed percentages up against the village's current census so trustees could see the dollar impact to the village, and Russ agreed to provide the requested spreadsheets and sensitivity analysis ahead of the budget hearing. Several trustees suggested a flat 12.5% or similar flat splits for simplicity; Trustee Nick and others favored 12.5% as a reasonable compromise that closely matches current employee contributions overall.
The board did not adopt a formal cost-share policy at the meeting but gave staff direction to produce detailed scenario spreadsheets (including 10%, 12.5%, 15% and 20% flat models and bifurcated blends), to include the 10.4% premium increase in calculations, and to return with dollar impacts for the April budget hearing.
Next steps: staff will prepare the requested roll-ups by the current participant census, illustrate the village budget impact under each option, and present them to trustees ahead of the scheduled budget hearing.
