CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council last week discussed ideas for cutting costs associated with health insurance provided to council members.
Focal points of the discussion landed on the city's current policy in providing no-cost coverage of council member dependents and cost savings that might found in each member of the council seeking a coverage plan independently.
The city's current total expense for providing health care insurance to members of the council and their dependents is $110,262. The annual cost of single coverage is $9,924; single plus one is $19,404; and the family rate is $26,040.
City Manager Joan Phillipe said there are currently three council members covered at the single plus one level for a total annual expense of $58,212 and two at the family level for a total annual expense of $52,080.
Members of the council were unanimously in agreement that no-cost coverage should be provided to the council member only and options for adding dependents should be available at the expense of the council member.
Limiting coverage to council members only would result in an annual savings of $60,672, Phillipe said.
“It's one thing for us to be covered but the community should not be paying for my family. They are not the elected official,” Councilwoman Joyce Overton said.
Vice Mayor Gina Fortino Dickson said since members of the council are considered to be “employees” of the city, their benefits should mirror that of city staff. She said if staff can add dependents at their expense, the same option should apply to the council.
Citizen Bruno Sabatier asked if there were any options available to the council members as a result of the national health care reform.
Fortino Dickson, who said she has training in educating the public on the new health care law, said the Affordable Care Act prohibits corporations from dropping coverage currently provided to employees.
However, Phillipe said in her report that it is a matter of policy that the city provides health insurance for council members.
She said there is a period of time in the early 2000s in which the coverage was discontinued completely, which she understood was because of fiscal constraints.
Overton said she remembered the reason being that the council at the time did not want people to run for office just to gain the insurance benefits.
District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith, who spoke from the public, said he recalled that all council members at the time had other insurance.
“There were financial problems, too but that was pretty much what it was,” he said.
Smith recommended the council consider placing a maximum allowance on insurance such as the Board of Supervisors does.
He said expenditures over the maximum amount are paid by the individual. He also suggested limiting coverage to two persons.
Fortino Dickson said city policy does exist for council member reimbursement for health care costs.
Phillipe said the policy relates to those who may be covered by a spouse's policy. Overton said that policy needs to change.
Overton said in her personal research she has found a private plan to fit her needs at a cheaper rate than the city is paying.
It was suggested that each member of the council research options for private coverage prior to the upcoming budget discussion, during which the discussion is expected to resume.
Email Denise Rockenstein at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .