Dori read this at the meeting Tuesday night. Well thought out and looks to save some
much needed money.
What do you think?
Transportation:
· Reduce the two FT dispatchers to two PT positions (3.5 hrs/day…6-9:30AM and 2-5:30PM)
o Reduces the cost of providing benefits
· If the mechanics are truly doing simply maintenance work on the District vehicles rather than repair work, then the job titles and pay scales should be modified accordingly to “mechanic helper” as they were in the past. It is my understanding, and I admit that I could be wrong, that our current staff is responsible for oil changes, brake changes, etc., all what would be deemed as normal maintenance but that all repair work (i.e. broken tie rods, head gaskets) are being farmed out to vendors such as DePaula Chevrolet, Gage, and a former Leonard Bus employee who opened his own shop just to name a few. Being married to a former mechanic, there is a HUGE difference in skills between someone who changes oil and someone who can diagnose and repair broken drive shafts and transmissions, as an example.
· Split shifts for mechanic helpers
o Create two shifts (6AM – 2PM and 12PM – 8PM)
o Would ensure staff onsite when the buses are deployed in the morning and afternoon as well as staff present to address issues when the buses return after their runs.
o The earlier shift could address issues that arise during the morning runs while the later team would be available to address routine maintenance issues after the buses return in the afternoon as well as problems identified during the late runs.
· Rehire retirees as subs rather than paying overtime…we’ve done it this year, hence the “double dipping” argument doesn’t hold water. The precedent has been established and now must become a significant component of how we control overtime costs
Grounds:
· Creative scheduling…plan ahead! OT is not always necessary in the winter. If you know a snowstorm is expected, then rearrange schedules so that staff is excused early the day before and comes in timely the next morning to address the plowing duties…this is purely an example!
Operations and Maintenance:
· Have we looked at the cost of outsourcing janitorial services? To be clear, I’m not necessarily in favor of this but am just asking if we’ve done the due diligence and if so, what were the results?
Get creative with scheduling…if the staff has work that has to be completed after hours or on the weekend, rather than paying a minimum of 3 hours of overtime, as per the contract, then · schedule equivalent time off the following week. If building checks continue, then assign the task to one person and make that day his regular day to work. For example, if the building checks will occur on Sundays, then the employee responsible would work Wednesday through Sunday, rather than Monday through Friday with overtime on Sunday.
· Building checks should be completed by the Supervisor of the department. I understand that this requires modification to the existing contract but this was clearly the responsibility of the supervisor throughout the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s when Gret Weekley was the supervisor.
Health Insurance Benefits:
· Move to a wage band driven contribution scale for eligible employees...please see example
Example of Wage Band Driven Health Insurance Contributions for eligible employees |
| | | | | |
| | | Single | Single + 1 | Family |
| Per month premium: | | $ 300.00 | $ 400.00 | $ 500.00 |
| | | | | |
Wage Band | Salary | % of Premium | Per month contribution |
A | $0 - $25,000 | 10.00% | $ 30.00 | $ 40.00 | $ 50.00 |
B | $25,001 - $50,000 | 15.00% | $ 45.00 | $ 60.00 | $ 75.00 |
C | $50,001 - $75,000 | 17.50% | $ 52.50 | $ 70.00 | $ 87.50 |
D | $75,001 - $100,000 | 20.00% | $ 60.00 | $ 80.00 | $ 100.00 |
E | >$100,000 | 25.00% | $ 75.00 | $ 100.00 | $ 125.00 |
| | | | | |
· Implement a “Working Spouse Surcharge”: If an employee’s spouse or domestic partner elects to utilize Averill Park’s benefits rather than using coverage available through their own employer, then a surcharge could be assessed, again defined by wage band, to the Averill Park employee. The premise is that the spouse/partner’s employer is getting the savings of not having to cover their employee while AP is taking the financial hit, one we clearly cannot afford. The employee will either elect to drop the spouse/partner or agree to a nominal charge to offset AP’s extra costs.
· Eliminate the traditional indemnity plan with consumer driven health care (not high co-pay) plans. Create both a plan that is driven by Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and one that is driven by district-funded Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs). Among the advantages to both are specifically defined preventative care is covered at 100%, meaning no co-pay or deductible costs to the employee, the benefit of in-network negotiated reimbursement rates to the providers, and the concept that the employee becomes a more active and engaged participant in his or her medical care. Another important advantage related to the HRA is that the “funding” of the allowance only incurs as claims are incurred, with no immediate outlay of cash while the HSA is entirely employee funded on a tax-deductible basis. I have included documentation explaining these plans in more detail as well as an example from my own benefits handbook (please refer to the last few pages). I must admit that at first, the transition from the traditional insurance plan to the new HRA plan that I currently participate in was a shock to the system but now, in the third year, it’s not a big deal at all. It requires me to be more cognizant of how my health care dollars are spent but I still receive the same quality of care I always did when I need it.
· I know, as a board, the decision was made to stop the “free” insurance when two spouses both work for the district. This has got to be included in any new contract. It is just unreasonable in this day and age.
Ultimately, what all of this comes down to is that we as a district need to be far more flexible and inventive than we have been in years gone by. As I listened to the administrators last night explain how that although they understood the programming cuts laid out by Mike, they were still extremely concerned about the loss of support staff (psychologists, substance abuse and guidance counselors, etc.), it became more and more clear to me that we still need to find either additional streams of funding or achievable cost savings. I sincerely hope that none of these comments have been deemed as offensive…simply my perspective and suggestions.
From Wikipedia:
Defined narrowly, consumer-driven health care (CDHC) refers to third tier health insurance plans that allow members to use health savings accounts (HSAs), Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs), or similar medical payment products to pay routine health care expenses directly, while a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) protects them from catastrophic medical expenses. High-deductible policies cost less, but the user pays routine medical claims using a pre-funded spending account, often with a special debit card provided by a bank or insurance plan. If the balance on this account runs out, the user then pays claims just like under a regular deductible. Users keep any unused balance or "rollover" at the end of the year to increase future balances, or to invest for future expenses.
This system of health care is referred to as "consumer driven health care" because routine claims are paid using a consumer-controlled account versus a fixed health insurance benefit. That gives patients greater control over their own health budgets. According to economist John C. Goodman, "In the consumer-driven model, consumers occupy the primary decision-making role regarding the health care they receive." Goodman points to a McKinsey study which found that CDHC patients were twice as likely as patients in traditional plans to ask about cost and three times as likely to choose a less expensive treatment option, and chronic patients were 20 percent more likely to follow treatment regimes carefully.
Health Reimbursement Accounts or Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) are Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-sanctioned programs that allow an employer to set aside funds to reimburse medical expenses paid by participating employees. Using an HRA yields "tax advantages to offset health care costs" for both employees as well as employers.
Establishment
Health Reimbursement Accounts are initiated by the employer and serviced by a third-party administrator or plan service provider. The employer may provide in the HRA plan document that a credit balance in an employee's HRA account can be rolled over from year to year like a savings account. The employer decides if the funds are rolled from year to year and how much rolls over (which can be either a flat amount or a percentage).
Contributions
According to the IRS, an HRA "must be funded solely by an employer," and contributions cannot be paid through a voluntary salary reduction agreement (i.e., a cafeteria plan). There is no limit on the employer's contributions, which are excluded from an employee's income. Distributions
According to the IRS, "employees are reimbursed tax free for qualified medical expenses up to a maximum dollar amount for a coverage period HRAs reimburse only those items (copays, coinsurance, deductibles and services) agreed to by the employer which are not covered by the company's selected standard insurance plan (any health insurance plan, not only high-deductible plans). These arrangements are described in IRS Section 105. With an HRA, employers fund individual reimbursement accounts for their employees and define what those funds can be used for – i.e., specified out-of-pocket expenses such as deductibles and co-pays.
Qualified claims must be described in the HRA plan document at inception, i.e., before reimbursing employees for those medical expenses. Arrangements (medical services, dental services, co-pays, coinsurance, deductibles, participation) may vary from plan to plan, and an employer may have multiple plans in place, allowing much flexibility. The kinds of expenses that can be paid under a HRA plan are generally the same as the expenses that can be paid through a Flexible Spending Account (FSA).
The employer is not required to prepay into a fund for reimbursements, instead, the employer reimburses employee claims as they occur.
