5.1. SR 12-08-1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. heard from the City Council relates to the cost of health insurance for our employees that need family coverage. This cost of family insurance coverage is rising dramatically every year and is, in general terms, a national issue and not a state or local issue. The rising costs in Elk River are higher than "normal" based on our past claims history. Attached for your review is a summary of the Elk River employee insurance benefits, a page from the October, 1993, Leaque of Minnesota Cities magazine, and a page from the February, 1993, National Business magazine. Also attached is some information from the 1992 Metropolitan Area Salary Survey, and from the 1993 League of Minnesota Cities Salary and Benefit Survey for outs tate cities. This information, especially pages 92-108 of the 1992 metropolitan area data and all of the 1993 League of Minnesota Cities data, should provide the City Council with some information on how the benefits in Elk River compare to other similar communities. Please note that this information does not answer Kathy Anderson's question regarding how many cities offer the "balance" or "part of the balance" between the City cap and the actual cost for the single insurance coverage employees to those employees in one form of benefit or another. . I believe that Kathy feels that the City is discriminating against the single insurance coverage employee and that our City policy is unfair. I disagree with this and believe that the City policy is consistent with most other cities and is fair and not discriminatory. The City has 57 full-time employees that receive benefits. Eighteen of these employees have family health insurance coverage and 38 of these employees have single health insurance coverage (one employee has chosen not to have any insurance coverage with the City). If the City Council were to pay the difference between our cap of $280 and the actual cost of single health, dental, and life insurance to these employees for other benefits, then the cost to the City could reach $42,500 as of 1/1/94 ($93.23 x 38 employees x 12 months = $42,513). On the other hand, if the City Council approved action for all the employees who have single health insurance to be allowed to obtain family dental insurance, then the cost to the City could reach approximately $14,800 ($32.42 is the difference between single and family dental insurance coverage x 38 employees x 12 months = $14,782). I believe it is appropriate to hear any and all employees at the City Council level who have concerns over how the City is doing business. However, I would recommend that the City not make any change in its practice of providing employee benefits. .