Here. Council member Osc is online. Council member Nelson. >> Hi. >> Gilbertson. >> Gardner >> here. >> Bagley. >> Davis. >> Here. >> Butterfield >> here. >> Shoulders >> here. There are two absent mayor.
Stand for the pledge. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. United States of Americ? >> Yes. >> Okay. go ahead in uh the first resolution.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Juggling a few windows here, so give me a second. Um, so the first resolution that you guys have in your packet this morning, and Kyle, maybe you can help me because
I don't have the agenda window open at the same time. Is the first resolution the contract? >> Uh, no. >> Base pay schedule. >> The base pay schedule. Thank you. Okay. Uh so the first resolution that you have in your packet this morning is the base
pay schedule for 2026 through 2028 and this would be for um unrepresented employees of the city. Um that proposed base sca pay scale is a
4% increase for 2026, a 3.5% increase for 2027, and a 3.5% increase for 2028. I believe that um Brandon sent you guys um more information about what went into
that, but uh essentially we did some updates to our um market study uh to arrive at a number that fell within what the rest of the market is doing for the next three years.
Questions about that? That one's pretty straightforward. >> We got a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We got a second. Discussion >> hearing. None. Roll call. >> Council Oasque. >> I. >> Nelson.
>> Hi. >> Gardner. >> Hi. >> Davis. >> I. >> Butterfield. >> Hi. >> Strollers. >> Hi. >> Six. Yes. Zero. Nos. Motion passes. Next is a resolution approving the health
insurance. >> So the um health insurance, as you guys know, because you previously uh approved the contract, um we were able to add four tiers to the or two additional tiers to bring it to a
total of four tiers to the health insurance. Um so that changes the numbers a little bit in terms of um what the cost for those tiers are and what the the city contribution would be. [gasps]
Um so the resolution you have before you today has um proposed city contributions for single uh family as well as employee plus children and employee plus spouse
for 2026 only. Um and that is just because we aren't certain whether um this same insurance um plan or structure will continue to be available to us or will be the best option for us. Um so
there are single and family rates for 2027 and 2028 in your resolution. Um but only employee plus spouse and employee plus children for 2026. Our intention would be to bring back rates for you to
approve for um employee plus spouse and employee plus children for 27 and 28 if those uh tiers remain available to us and we'd bring back um a proposed contribution that would be in line with
um what the single and family are for those years. Um I know you got some information about this as well. um the single and family rates um are significant increases over what they are
now. Um however, there's some context that goes with that. Um so what happens when when premiums are set? um the insurance company has an idea based
on our previous history and our number of employees and who they're insuring how many claims they're expecting to pay out. So it doesn't matter whether you insure an employee plus their spouse under a family plan or under an employee
plus spouse plan, the claims are the same. So when we offer just single and family coverage, the insurance company tries to estimate what claims they think they're going to pay out for the number of individuals insured and they set their
premium based on that. When we're able to split that up into four tiers, it doesn't change the claims that are going to be paid out. So the total premium cost is set the same. Um what happens is
that uh single and family plans go up um because the employee plus spouse and the employee plus children go down. So instead of the family pool um being split across every variation of families
that have two or more people, it really only captures families that have a spouse and children, which theoretically are going to produce more claims. So the cost for that plan goes up because those people that no longer fall in the family
that fall under employee plus spouse and employee plus children go down. but the total premium cost stays the same. Um, so what that means for our contributions is that it looks like our contribution for single and family went up quite a
bit. And it did. It really did. um in order to keep that at a reasonable number for the employee. But that is because we are going to pay a lot less on the individuals that um moved from the family to the employee plus spouse
or employee plus children group. Um so the other thing that that does is it provides an incentive for families to really look at what the best combination of insurance is for their family. Um, so in some cases, let's say you have an
employee whose spouse is out also working and offers insurance. Um, they have to decide which plan to put the children on. If they've been putting the children under the city's plan, well, the cost is the same for them to also add the spouse. So, they might as well
do the whole family. Now, they have an option to just add the children at a significantly lower cost than the whole family. So perhaps they choose to have their spouse on their own insurers plan and only have the children on this plan.
So what we actually saw with enrollment is that um our overall city contribution from 2025 to 2026 with the addition of the two new tiers in the middle and the choices that
employees made based on that um is remaining pretty much flat. Um, so we're not actually going to see an increase for um the city's contributions from 25 to 26 with these proposed rates. And also it actually allows us to contribute
more to the plans that went up in price um so that our employees also actually feel uh a reasonable cost on their end. Um so that that's kind of the background of the the proposed rates that we brought
to you guys. And then for 27 and 28 um for the single and family plans, it's a 5% increase um in the employer contribution. And again, if the um other two plans continue to be available to us, we would expect to bring back something similar for those for those
two years. We'll take any questions you have about those. >> Okay. And Steve, this might be a question for Tom. Um, >> I'd like to know at some point what it costs us to employ spouses or to cover
spouses, >> what it costs us an in HSA, what it costs us in the cost of their insurance. >> Okay. I know you have answer to that. >> Yeah, it it does depend on whether or not they also have children. Um because if they're insuring the children then
the HSA cost is the same whether they add the spouse or not. Um so then the difference is is between the employer contribution of either the the employee [clears throat] plus children to the family plan or the single to the employee plus spouse plan depending on
their um on their situation. I can tell you what the difference in that cost is here. Um so um if they were if it was the difference between um single coverage and employee
plus spouse that difference is $71028 per month. If the difference is between family coverage and employee plus children,
that's $593.88 a month >> with the proposed 2026 rates. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? What a motion?
I'll move to approve that. We got a motion to approve the >> resolution and a second. Any further discussion? >> Roll call. >> Council member Nelson. >> Hi. >> Gardner. >> Hi.
>> Davis. >> I. >> Butterfield. >> Hi. >> Shoulders. >> Hi. >> Os. I >> six I zero nos. >> Motion carries. Next is uh LF's. >> Go ahead.
>> Yes. So um you have before you the LS contract um that we've negotiated with that group along with two umus that go along with that. Um I'll give you some context for theUS. Um, the reason that
we did anou for the insurance rates for employee plus children is and employee plus spouse is the same reason um that I just gave you uh for the the previous resolution, not including those rates for 2026 and or 2027 and 2028, I'm
sorry. Um, we only put the single plus family rates into the contract for 26 27 and 28. We did anou for the 2026 um rates for the other two tiers with the intention of also doing anou for
2027 in 2028 if those tiers continue to be available. Um other than that the uh rates themselves are the same as the ones you just improved approved for non-represented employees. Um and then the secondou is um for court
cancellation pay. um thatouou would be for all three years of this contract. Um but it gives us an opportunity to take some data on the frequency of those cancellations and what that would actually cost the city before we put it into a permanent contract. Um so that's
in anou for [clears throat] this um round as well. Um, with the contract itself, the uh, COLA proposed COLA increases are also the same as the ones you just approved for non-represented employees. So, 4% for 2026, 3.5% for
2027, and 3.5% for um, 2028. Um, I know you got a list of um, some of the other changes that were included in that. Um many of those changes were
designed to bring some consistency across policies and contracts um with our different employees. Um so uh and and to bring the the contract in compliance with state law as it applies specifically to different types of
leave. Um so the sick leave portion was updated to match the personnel policy and to red um remove any specific language related to when you can use it since that language was not consistent with state law. Um and instead we'll
rely on updates to our personnel policy to capture changing state law related to the sick leave or the earned sick and safe leave. Um the vacation leave was also updated to match the same schedule that we have in our personnel policy. Um
the clothing allowance was increased slightly from year to year. Um there was a change to how we handle specialist pay. Um previously um uh if somebody or sorry for the
specialist pay in general the the monthly rate increased. Um but it is as the language has also been changed to um pay it out as a lump sum per month rather than converting it to an hourly rate that gets applied to um the number
of hours worked. So, it's a lump sum per month and that amount is increased. Um, and then the parenting leave section was eliminated from the contract again because um, PFML comes into play in
2026. Um, and so that kind of replaces um, previous language around um, parenting um, leave that that the contract had that used to be part of state law. Those are kind of the highlights of the
changes. Any questions about that contract or thoseUS? >> No. Does it have anything in to do with that? The do we put anything in there with the new law for the disability
family leave or is that >> We did not put anything into the contract and that was intentional. um we want that language to also live within our personnel policy where um we have the ability to update that as needed. So
um our anticipation is that as that new leave form is rolled out across the state in 2026 um there will be things that come up with that um that might prompt the legislature to make some tweaks to that law. Um, so putting that into contracts
makes it a lot more challenging to keep our documentation up todate and current. Um, if it if the policy just lives in the personnel manual, then we can update that as needed based on any changes to the state statutes over the next three years.
>> Any more questions? >> We get a resolution motion to adopt the resolution. So moved. >> Second. >> We got a motion and a second. Discussion. Roll call. >> Council member Gardner. >> I. >> Davis. >> I. >> Butterfield.
>> I should. >> Hi. >> Os. [clears throat] >> I. >> Nelson. >> I. >> Six. I zero. No. >> Motion passes. No other business. I get a motion to adjourn.
Second. Thank you everybody. >> Thanks Tom.