It took a few tries, but the city leaders finally voted on a proposal to help offset some of the expense related to a recent increase in health insurance costs for city employees.
At Monday night's Indianola Board of Aldermen meeting, the lawmakers voted unanimously to accept a proposal suggested by Alderman Ruben Woods that would cause any employees making $21,000 or more annually (base salary) to be subject to a $37.50 per month copay toward the cost of their health insurance.
The proposed measure by Woods would not affect any city worker making $20,800 or less, they would not have a copay. Currently, city employees pay zero dollars towards the cost of their healthcare insurance, but have to contribute heftily to include their spouses and/or children.
The city pays $463.52 per month per employee for health insurance, plus $39.26 for a supplemental policy. If an employee has to add their spouse to the coverage, the employee pays an additional $509.88 per month, for a worker and their children the amount is $394 per month; however, to cover a family the employee has to pay an additional $973.40 monthly.
A reported $108,000 increase in the city’s annual healthcare premium is what prompted the city fathers to consider an additional contribution from the employees.
Woods’ motion also included a condition that the current proposed budget be reduced by $50,000 and an addendum that the assessment be re-evaluated before the start of the 2021 fiscal year.
The measure passed unanimously, but not without a vigorous discussion and the defeat of an initial motion, which failed by a 2 to 3 vote that was made and seconded by aldermen Gary Fratesi and Darrell Simpson respectively.
In that vote, Fratesi suggested that employees making $26,001 and above pay a $75 copay and those making $26,000 and below be exempt. Aldermen Woods, Sam Brock and Marvin Elder voted no.
Municipal Court Clerk Teresa Nolden then questioned whether they had consulted with an attorney because she had received legal advice that suggests any such measure that made exception for some of the employees and not others could be considered economic discrimination.
Mayor Steve Rosenthal had reportedly included four options in the aldermen’s packets for them to consider and it appears that neither was to their predilection. “The four options generate anywhere from $40,400 towards the $108,000 cost of the increase to $51,174,” Rosenthal said.
He added that even though some workers would end up paying more than others in each of the proposed options, they were “somewhat fair across the board.” During the dialogue about the options, Rosenthal, at one interval, mentioned the unfairness of percentages. “We’ve got 12 people paying 42 percent of the total collections,” he said.
Fratesi called the matter a “big problem” that is hard to figure out and countered Rosenthal’s statement by saying, “It doesn’t matter, they make more than the other people.”
Rosenthal said in his opinion the packets included three good options. “One the employees pays anywhere from $20 per month for our lowest paid employee to $50 a month for our highest paid employee.” He mentioned a second option that ranged from $20 to $75 per month.
At that point, Brock interrupted. Addressing Rosenthal, he said, “You’re not giving no concern to those making less than $10 an hour and that’s the bulk of your workers in groups one and two.” Brock was referring to a previous document submitted by City Clerk Lashanda Moore at the request of the board that separated the city workers into pay groups.
Referring to the low economic state of the majority of the city’s workers, Brock said, “So if they’re not getting nothing but milk and white bread, why are you going to take the white bread and give the milk? Give them something.”
Alderman Simpson then compared the city employee situation to employees in non-governmental jobs and said those in the private sector pay equally into their insurance regardless of their pay rate.
Brock cautioned Simpson that he was comparing apples and oranges and Elder asserted that the city workers were not being paid “right.” He said, “They hadn’t been paid right in years.”
Simpson reasoned that the employees should share in the expense of their health insurance increase. Then citing the two-mill boost that was voted on at Thursday’s special session, he said it would be consumed in just paying for the added-on insurance costs alone.
He implied that by paying the entire cost, it would add an additional load on the taxpayers who would not reap any benefits from the increase, mainly street repair.
Alderman Elder asserted, “We find money to buy everything we need except taking care of our city employees, that’s wrong.” Apparently referring to the proposed budget, Elder said if they had to go back and change some things they would, “But we’re going to take care of these city employees,” he said.
At that remark, Fratesi issued a challenge to Elder, “I welcome you to go to that budget and cut it.” Fratesi declared that Elder had stressed all summer that he was going to cut the budget, but according to him, he has only done the opposite. “You hadn’t done any budget cutting, all you’ve done is add,” Fratesi said.
Elder questioned how he had added to the budget, Fratesi did not offer any specifics; however, Rosenthal stated, “Five thousand for the audit.”
Elder then declared that if Fratesi wanted him to do some cutting, it could be done. “Since you opened this door up, if we’re going to handle something about some cutting, then we’re going to go cutting some doggone pay raises then, we’re going to go back and look at some stuff,” said Elder.
Although he did not elaborate on the specifics, he did say it was something he brought up prior that needed to be revisited that night.
Brock then asked if paying the full amount of the increase would put the city in a “setback.” Rosenthal reasoned that it would, noting that they would have to come up with another $40 thousand to $50 thousand when he has already cut 10 percent across the board from the categories that could be adjusted in the proposed budget.
The aldermen then questioned which categories Rosenthal was referring to since at a prior meeting he had stated that salaries accounted for 80 percent of the budget. This time he included utilities in the category also.
