Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Personnel topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fergus Falls staff recommend MetLife equivalent for Minnesota Paid Leave administration

Fergus Falls City — Committee of the Whole · August 27, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff recommended contracting with MetLife to administer the Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave benefit, citing faster claim turnaround and a potentially more favorable employer rate than the state plan; committee approved forwarding the recommendation to council.

City staff recommended the city enroll in an equivalent private plan administered by MetLife rather than use the state-run Minnesota Paid Family and Medical Leave program when the law takes full effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

"The Minnesota Paid Leave Act was enacted in May of '23... updates were made in May of 2024," Alicia said, and staff recommended an equivalent MetLife program for administrative efficiency and cost reasons. Alicia told the committee that counterparts in other counties are using equivalent plans and that MetLife may provide quicker reimbursement timelines for employees filing claims—staff described a speed-of-service difference (MetLife: quicker return-to-pay; state plan: longer administrative processing).

During questioning, councilors asked how premiums are handled and whether MetLife holds the premiums or acts solely as an administrator; Alicia answered that MetLife would receive premiums from employer and employee and cover claims under the equivalent plan. A motion to forward the staff recommendation to contract with MetLife was seconded and approved by the committee.

What’s next: staff will provide contract terms and the final cost comparison to the council at the upcoming meeting. Because the statute imposes employer obligations, the committee framed the choice as how to administer the mandated benefit, not whether to participate.