Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves joint employee‑assistance program with city, board members cite ~62% per‑employee cost reduction
Summary
The board authorized a shared EAP contract with the City to combine purchasing power; presenters said per‑employee cost falls roughly from $3.00 to $1.14, producing estimated annual savings for the district (approx. $25,000). Two board members abstained; the motion carried on roll call.
The Bridgeport Board of Education voted May 25 to join the City in a shared employee assistance program (EAP) contract, citing projected per‑employee cost savings and operational efficiencies.
Through the chair, district staff explained the city led an RFP process and recommended Lexington as the vendor. Dr. Siano described the arrangement as “a good partnership with the city” and said it would extend EAP services (mental‑health counseling and other supports) to both city and Board employees at a lower unit cost than the district had previously paid.
Board members pressed staff for procurement details, cost comparisons and total dollar savings. Purchasing and finance staff said the district historically paid about $41,000 per year for EAP services; by combining the city and board employee counts Lexington’s unit price is approximately $1.14 per employee (the district’s prior unit cost was roughly $3.00). One presenter explained that change represents about a 62% unit cost reduction and estimated annual savings around $25,000 for the district.
Questions from the board included whether the city conducted the RFP (yes), how apportionment would be calculated (each party pays the agreed unit cost multiplied by its respective employee count), and whether use patterns affect price (EAP pricing is not driven by claims the same way health insurance is). Mr. Calloway and others asked for a comparative table of bidders; staff said purchasing had vetted bids and provided a summary in the packet.
Board member Mr. Traynor moved approval. The board took a roll‑call vote: several members voted yes, two members (Mr. Medina and Mr. Sakalovic) recorded abstentions. The motion carried.
District staff said they will provide the board with final dollar‑savings figures from the city and the vendor; staff also said the contract would be reviewed if service levels or usage patterns change.
Next steps: staff will finalize contract paperwork with the city and vendor and provide a follow‑up report with the exact district savings and service details.
