Commission votes to absorb increased insurance costs

At their weekly business meeting Thursday, the Hill County Commission voted 2-1 to absorb a recent 6.5 percent increase in county employee health insurance rates by raising the county’s contribution to employee plans, which was the recommendation of the county’s insurance committee, as well as that of several county employees.

The rate increase came from the Montana Association of Counties which provides Hill County employees with health insurance, and committee members have been pushing the commission to absorb it so county employees don’t need to.

Hill County commissioners Mark Peterson and Jake Strissel voted in favor of absorbing the rate increase while fellow Commissioner Diane McLean voted against it.

This decision came after a tense meeting last week, with a crowd of employees attending and asking the commission to take the recommendation of the insurance committee, saying they have comparatively low incomes and not absorbing the increase would be a significant cost to them and take away one of the main selling points of working for Hill County, the impressive benefits package.

If the commission had chosen to keep its contribution to employee plans the same, each would be seeing an increase in monthly costs between $37 and $197 depending on their plan.

In previous meetings, Peterson and McLean expressed resistance to absorbing the costs, concerned about raising any taxes during a time of inflation for the county and doubting voters would approve any kind of levy.

Employees, including Hill County Clerk and Recorder Sue Armstrong, said the majority of the increase could be covered under the county’s permissive levy which would require no public vote and is set up specifically to cover insurance.

This week, Armstrong said she calculated how much of an increase taxpayers would see should the county choose to absorb the 6.5 percent, and based on the calculation she estimated a person owning a $100,000 property would see an increase of $2.85 per year.

McLean said during the meeting, attended by almost 30 employees, that that estimate is based on this year’s taxable value, so the number would change a bit based on the coming year’s taxable value, but $2.85 is in the ballpark of what it would be.

McLean said the timing of this decision is problematic because some employees can’t attend commission meetings during work hours, and if they had held the meeting after business hours more could weigh in, as well as the members of the public who would be picking up the cost.

“Your taxpayer, your businessperson, lots and lots of people are not able to have a say or express and interest,” she said.

Regardless, she said, absorbing this cost clearly doesn’t address the root cause of the angst among county employees, which seems to be a result of the county’s wages.

McLean said she wonders if it wouldn’t be wise to ask the voters for a levy to raise the wages, describing raising taxes through the permissive levy as “heavy handed.”

County employee Shane Huston said the public does need to understand that, with expenses going up, they need to really consider what kind of services they want from the county and let that inform how they vote on such a thing.

McLean also expressed fears about rising expenses, wondering how bad the rate increase could be next time.

Peterson said Hill County pays more to employee-and-family plans than any other county using MACo’s insurance program pointing to a claim the commission approved that day for $142,000, all for a month of employee health insurance.

Armstrong and Hill County Treasurer Sandy Brown tried to say that figure was inaccurate, but McLean told them not to speak while Peterson was making a statement.

“If you have something to add, raise your hand and you will be acknowledged,” she said.

Later Armstrong said that Peterson’s figure included the money the employees contributed, to their health insurance, as well as other non-county funds.

Employees asked how Hill County compares to other counties in term of wages and Peterson said such a comparison would be apples and oranges because it doesn’t take insurance into account.

He said the last time Hill County compared themselves to other counties, taking both wages and insurance into account, they were in the top 50 percent, but that was some time ago and employees are free to research that on their own.

Peterson also asked the employees present if they would meet with MACo staff during open enrollment to make sure they’re using the best plan for them, saying MACo often sees low participation during open enrollment.

Members of the insurance committee have said this lack of participation seems to be a result of faulty communication, not employee disinterest.

Peterson made the motion to adopt the insurance committee’s March 10 recommendation that the county absorb the 6.5 percent increase and allow employees to utilize any remaining county insurance contribution moneys to go toward medical premiums for vision, dental and health savings accounts.

Insurance Committee Member Bridget Kallenberger said she submitted the commission an updated recommendation recently that included a request to keep county contributions for dental the same, as well as keeping all plans the same.

Peterson said his motion didn’t include that part of the recommendation because there have been some changes to that dental insurance, but they will be positive for the employees.

He also said the commission was originally considering cutting certain plans.

Kallenberger said she recommends against that, in part because the plan noted is the most popular plan in the county and because getting rid of it would increase employee deductibles by $500 dollars.

Peterson said the possibility of cutting plans based on low usage will be discussed in the future.

At the meeting, the commissioners also voted 3-0 to adopt a policy change that allows Montana State University Extension agents actively working in Hill County to use county vehicles for Extension business.

McLean has said Extension agents can already use county vehicles for this purpose, this change just makes it clear in county policy so there is no confusion.