Commissioners and county staff spent the bulk of an unofficial work session reviewing 2026 health-insurance renewal options after receiving multiple vendor price sheets that included conflicting numbers and typographical errors. The discussion focused on higher deductibles and coinsurance rates in several proposed plans and how those changes would affect employees’ out-of-pocket costs.

The commission’s primary concern was clarity and affordability. “If you offer an insurance plan that has the potential to be a $5,500 doctor's appointment for the sixth appointment, that's not very affordable,” said a county employee who described chronic medical expenses and urged the commission to preserve benefits that support retention. Commissioners and staff repeatedly flagged mismatched worksheets from the broker and the clerk and discarded sheets they judged to be incorrect.

Why it matters: The county’s benefits budget and employee take-home pay are both at stake. Commissioners said they budgeted for a specified benefits appropriation in 2026 and do not want last-minute premium changes to force a mill-levy increase or to shift unsustainable costs onto low-paid employees.

What was discussed: Staff and elected officials examined several alternate plans (references in materials include labels such as CMZTA and Blue Edge/2,500/5,000) and enrollment counts. One sheet showed 69 employees in “Plan A” and 12 in “Plan B.” Commissioners said vendor and clerk documents reported different enrollment counts and asked the broker for corrected enrollment-by-plan figures and a single, corrected price comparison. Several commissioners also proposed a defined-contribution approach for HSA options in which the county would place the difference between a lower-cost HSA premium and the currently budgeted employer contribution directly into employees’ HSAs.

Budget modeling and an alternative split: One commissioner presented a preliminary model showing that an 80% employer / 20% employee split (with a 90%/10% split for single coverage in one variant) would keep benefit costs inside the county’s previously budgeted total while reducing the employee premium impact compared with the renewal quotes as presented. The commissioner asked staff to produce an Excel spreadsheet breaking the alternatives out by plan and enrollment so the commission can run sensitivity scenarios.

Concerns raised by staff and employees: Staff and employees noted two practical limits to mitigation by HSA contribution: (1) HSAs accumulate slowly, so a worker with immediate, large medical needs still faces high out-of-pocket exposure; and (2) premium increases for employee-plus-child or family coverage could still more than double the employee’s share even after employer help. “That HSA contribution is a spit in the ocean for this,” one employee said of the proposed county contribution, noting the very high deductibles paired with some options.

Next steps: Commissioners asked the broker (referred to in the meeting as Don/Dougherty) for corrected, apples-to-apples price sheets that match the coverage terms of the current year and include vision/dental pricing and voluntary-product rates. They scheduled an additional work session to review the corrected spreadsheets and requested that the clerk make a deputy available so the commission could hold a short special meeting immediately afterward if a vote or formal direction was required.

What was not decided: No formal votes were taken; this was an informational work session. Commissioners made no final coverage selections and did not adopt a benefit policy. The commission committed to reconvening with clarified cost sheets and enrollment counts before taking formal action.

Speakers (attributed quotes come from these persons):
- Chair (county commission chair) — government
- Clerk (county clerk) — government
- Don / Dougherty — insurance broker/benefits consultant (referred to in meeting)
- Commissioner Melbourne — government
- Mr. Cruz — government (speaker who commented on budget earlier and participated in benefits discussion)
- Employee speaker (identified in meeting, volunteer testimony about chronic conditions) — citizen/employee

Authorities: []

Actions: []

Provenance: [{"block_id":"block_00:20:16","local_start":0,"local_end":140,"evidence_excerpt":"So, with benefits, I've seen some of the proposed plans that have come out... it essentially increases the deductible... increases coinsurance... up to 40% which could be substantial","tc_start":"00:20:16","tc_end":"00:20:16","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"block_01:21:00","local_start":0,"local_end":160,"evidence_excerpt":"So the question I had in my head... if we went 80/20 this year... we still fall within budget... give them a price sheet that's consistent with what they had last year","tc_start":"01:21:00","tc_end":"01:21:00","reason_code":"topicfinish"}]

Topics:[{"name":"employee_benefits","justification":"The meeting centered on reviewing 2026 health insurance renewals, plan terms, and employer/employee contribution models.","scoring":{"topic_relevance":1.00,"depth_score":0.95,"opinionatedness":0.05,"controversy":0.65,"civic_salience":0.90,"impactfulness":0.88,"geo_relevance":1.00}}]