##VIDEO ID:yYEW73NIEx8## agreement um since our last session we do have a few updates on our plan performance uh we have claims from August and September that we can take a look at um and then I'd say we pick up where we left off in August and where the district did propose um some new rates for both employer and employee contributions um so uh with that I'll turn it over to Nancy director of risk sorry go ahead Diane um remember I wanted to use the transcribe and we needed to explain that sure so uh for for note taking uh Diane is going to turn on um transcribe and she will shut it off um it doesn't work in the in the uh caucus but in the breakout rooms but she's going to shut it off anyway and there'll be noticed that that does that am I right like a recorder yeah it takes notes basically yeah it will take uh notes for the um whatever everyone is saying for each box that is saying just to take the notes for the meeting and then we will shut it off so that it's not taking any notes during any breakouts then we'll re-engage it when everyone comes back to the meeting again uh as a notetaker for the meeting okay is that like that AI email I got after our last meeting it's yeah but it's not the AI piece all it does is take those it takes exact notes like a transcription of what's being said it doesn't interpret what the meaning of it is and tell you what will then happen it's just specific uh whatever is being said it takes the exact dictation to that and puts it into a Google doc for us uh so that we've got the notes for it and tells the start and end of it uh so that we've got the notes for the meeting and then we'll be able to send those notes and attach them okay all right and I will start that nail I just did not want it to start without you knowing it and we were supposed to give you notice that it's starting thank you thanks D all right so I'm gonna turn it over to Nancy Bolton our director of benefits and risk management uh for a brief recap since our last uh session Nancy okay good morning ladies and gentlemen good to see you all um so just a quick uh overview of the topics to cover just our plan performance update as of August 31st uh August 7th bargaining recap um which was the district's rate proposal to cover the projected 2025 funding deficit through the 5050 split um propos Redline changes to the bargaining articles and then of course discussion so again with this small font but you all received the August claims report uh so you should be familiar with these numbers um every month our claims these are just our claims numbers which consist of prescription drugs and actual claims that hit the books during the month represented as well as the rebates the drug rebates that we receive in red from the manufacturers so we did get the September claims just the claims numbers yesterday um and but we're still waiting for that full report which we have started to share with you as well from our consultants and uh plan actuary together they send us the Big Data Rich report so we don't have that yet for September claims but we do have the claims numbers which are about 19.7 million which um will populate this model to reflect that and so uh it is about a million dollars more than the prior September claims there seems to be a kind of a dip in September which appears to be somewhat historic in nature and this month as well or this year as well our claims have been exceeding 20 million um September claims are 19.7 but there still a million higher than the last two septembers um and then just you know the model that you have been looking at and uh the loss that we are projected to face in the current plan year which then begins to eat into our Surplus required by the state and then with the full loss projected next year of 48 million is the nut that we're trying to cover uh just to uh to to do Break Even funding for that year and so the 48 million fluctuates we started the year with an estimate of you know 58 uh it's 48 the claims continue to come in and and impact that number on a monthly basis and so uh this is just the latest soon we'll have a September update and that is about it that's where we are with our with our claims experience Tim do you want to jump in here uh or do you want me to continue here or are you muted sorry I was muted uh so I got a little message says I was am I talking so nice nice that um so so ultimately what we're looking at here is um you know it fluctuating between 48 and where we were before at 55 uh million uh needed um so at the last session um we we had left off with a $53 per paycheck uh increase that was our last proposal um so I'm not sure if the Coalition would like to um you know caucus first and and discuss or if you all have had time to you know if you if you have a counter proposal for us to consider um but that's so basically turn it over to you guys to see where you're at with with a counter Gordon you're muted thank you very much Katie uh Tim we've had a chance to talk a little bit um before this meeting but in light of some of this new meet uh information a short five six seven minute caucus would probably serve us well absolutely Dan are you setting the breakout rims uh yep give me just a second [Music] had the um I don't know why I couldn't find the PowerPoint from session 4 so it was 53 instead of 58 yes [Music] okay sorry they all moved out of the room so give me one moment for [Music] I will go tell the people in breakout room one that you guys are returning [Music] [Music] I'm going to restart transcribe now just let me know when we're all good to go Diane you are good all right um thank you very much um the Coalition does have a counter offer so I'm going to go ahead and shck sh a document allowing everybody to see that uh that counter give me just a moment here I want to increase the font size on it for a few of us did I find that one hold on let me see this one more [Music] time those you need to increase the font size for those those of us 45 and younger this is different than Zoom so that's what I'm trying to describe here ah there it is shair so um this is the uh the coalition's counter proposal today it is our first offer we understand we're here probably for a few passes back and forth but our first offer is uh for plan year 2025 each employee premium contribution shall increase $22 per month that is $111 per pay cycle for 24 pay cycles and that would be matched by the district with an increase in their contribution of $88 per month $44 per pay cycle for 24 pay cycles per employee contribution increase that is the members of the plan um this is our first offer of the day um we are open as as we can as you all consider it we would ask that you continue to keep in mind that we are open to a multiple year deal if that also suits the district uh looking at a a larger way to solve our problem uh that we're looking at here with respect to Insurance all right um well I I appreciate you coming back with something and being open to to some different types of deals I I don't I mean in looking at that proposal that that's only a dollar more than than where where you were right for the first year and and how that impacts going forward with an additional year or two deal if that's something that is your pleasure to bring back as you all discuss that um the the big piece here Tim is that we understand that historically uh with our with our healthc care negotiations employees have borne about 20% of the cost of the premiums and the district has carried 80% of the cost of the premiums and you will notice that the that the numbers we have proposed are in keeping with that particular cost Arrangement which is in contrast to what was presented by the district when with their last offer off offer in which it was expected that employees would raise their burden on uh the on the premiums much higher than what has been traditionally the arrangement we've operated with in consideration of this benefit package so overall yeah I sort of agree with you that you know we're somewhere around an 8020 split um last year we were with 50 we did go up we you guys went up 10 per paycheck we we increased our contribution 10 bucks per paycheck as well for employees um I I guess in looking at it I mean our hope is really to resolve this issue more long term and and for us that that doesn't really um that that really is just you know instead of you know the the pot of money that we have um this doesn't help that really at all uh for for raises and things like that we our our push was is raises you know over over offsetting benefits um and I'm I we're not at a point where we're able to continue going 8020 um for for splitting of costs um but really we're we're hoping that we're able to solve this and just kind of move past this this funding deficit we do believe that once we do we'll be able to have more manageable increases in future years um um and and something along the lines of a a multi-year deal um we are willing to to entertain it we've had some discussions on our side about that um where you know I think that there is some you know obviously no increase is great nobody wants an increase I I get that we're we're fully understanding of that it's we had no increases for the longest time for 10 years and and that you know put us in a situation where um you know it we're we're that we're in really um so we we can look at something um real quick for a um some type of two-year well I can I could come out and and say you know we can consider something where we went you know $50 per paycheck uh for year one and then and then cut it in half for year two at $25 per paycheck something along those lines is a starting point um if if you'll consider that um and and I do know that across the state the the the split we were one of the most generous uh of all districts where most districts are are closer to like 703 or something like that and or maybe even 75 but um th those that trend is going down that's you know coming down from where we were just because it it's gotten so expensive so I'm not sure if you're you know we wouldn't be able to do something like the The Proposal that you you got there um but we we are you know interested in either a one-year deal um we're willing to hear some other offers or or something as a counter to the to the um two-year deal um1 a month for the first year and then $50 a month second year $50 a paycheck I Tim uh Tim I think that K I think Katie's question actually is on point she said $100 a month would be $50 of paycheck in the first year and then $50 a paycheck and then here I think I think it cut out I'm sorry so so 150 over two years well it's $50 per paycheck right 25 and then 25 per payche to to limit it so that it's you know we're not because I feel like some of the concern might be that well we'll be in this situation again next year right and District's going to just keep increasing it um I think as a starting point that might be something that the Coalition can consider if if those numbers are exactly your counter to what we have just put on the screen then we would caucus I'll just say the PBA we're concerned with how this will impact overall wages and I know we're in a unique position because we don't even know what our wage increase will be they'll be getting retro hopefully one this year so I could never agree to something that high without even knowing where we are going to end up with wages so um but something that we discussed is what I think we're comfortable with right now not even knowing what the wag will be the 22 a month so um but if you have any other counters but I can't agree to going up that much what you're proposing for two years just not even knowing where will'll be wages I do want to express that SEIU and asop share that same concern as we've yet to engage in um full contract bargaining on wages so that would be also a concern of the SEIU and ASO understood um well you you know maybe uh maybe you'd like to caucus thing and and discuss and if maybe have a a something else we can consider um we'd be happy to go you know round for round here and and try to talk through something and and consider other options until we find something that that you know kind of works for us both I think caucus at this point is probably prudent okay I think the breakout uh link is still at the top of the [Music] screen all right force that to do that yeah I think we're all back right I believe we are uh you're if you're ready Tim I'll just proceed sure so um let's see I have something we'll have to change when I get to it but uh we'll just jump in first uh I'm going to start by uh talking a little bit about uh the numbers that you presented as an option um for a 2-year deal and uh we're going to we're going to say that that's not an acceptable set of numbers um and here's why um $50 a pay period for an employee times 24 pay periods is $1,200 if we take that divided by our lowest paid employees at $23,000 and I think it's actually a touch less than that but if we use that number we're talking about a 5.2% hit on their salary they could literally get the 4% raises that were approved by the board for other employee groups at the last board meeting and lose money in the process and have to make choices about what uh when to go to the doctor or when to put gas in their car um we we cannot abide those kinds of numbers at that level because the employees the they we have a significant number of employees who are least able to afford that in fact even that number of $1,200 up to $30,000 is 4% or more of their salary and so that's why that number is untenable over two years for these people at the lowest end it would be a 7.8% hit on their salary if they didn't get 7.8% in pay raises uh they wouldn't even break even against the health care costs and then they would still fall behind based upon whatever happened to apply as cost of living and uh I just feel that that's very important to have out here in the information um given what we had presented uh a moment ago we are willing to repeat our offer of $22 per pay period or $22 per month $11 per pay period for two years for both plan years of 20125 and 2026 now what everybody is looking at here is this particular area right here if you will and I'm going to make sure that I can work on one screen and you can see it these numbers right here are numbers that are off of our previous claims reports and information in District presentations that reveal the district's count contributions expected this year to the to the trust fund are 163.427 million that's where we get the 8020 split because this number is literally 80% of that one within hundreds of a point and the same is true for the employee contributions down here now at the top I've taken the same number for 2024 and applied it here I've added your new $48 million you're asking for and we come up with 251 640 as the need this contribution down here of $22 a month for employees $88 a month for the district brings in a total uh between these two screens of $26.4 million leaving a gap of $21.6 million understand it's a gap and we'll talk about that in year two adding the same amount to it brings us to within $3.3 million of being balanced in the fund so what would be necessary from the district beyond the 88 and the 22 or the 88 the the 8020 split would be a total of $25 million over two years out of one time and those are one-time payments or it could be a one-time payment up front com out of one-time savings that are held in reserve to take care of that Gap while we build these numbers to get to this point bringing us back in 2026 to talk about where we go for 2027 and Beyond with clearly a very small Gap to fill and that all includes right down here 3.2% growth in claims based upon the current growth rate of claims that is revealed in the district's presentation information over time it is based on 19,99 to plan participants I think that's kind of between the last number we saw of like 19879 or something like that and some months of over 20,000 participants so that's why I've gone ahead and use that one but those are the numbers that are here um uh for you Heather if you're wanting to see any formulas that may apply to these squares I can highlight that to let you see that on the screen uh but that would be our offer I don't have it typed up but we could modify that to say for plan years 2025 and 2026 each employee premium contribution shall increase $22 per month $11 per pay cycle for 24 pay Cycles in each year and that would be matched by the district with an increase of $88 per month 44 per pay cycle for 24 pay cycles per employee contribution increase in each year of the agreement that would be our textt for that particular agreement which I can type up for more formal reasons but that's where we are we believe that this is a significant step to taking care of our uh our concerns over health care costs and getting us so close to where we need to be that it becomes manageable year-over-year from that point forward and it gives us the opportunity to see what other cost savings measures can go in there all right um yeah we're going to take a minute to to cus and and discuss uh your numbers and all I I could tell you I just know we're we're nowhere near where we where we need to be on our end um like no nowhere near it so um what we're even authorized to spend so is is the ultimate goal to get this to be a 50/50 split no it's not not necessarily um but I mean that you know 8020 is a is a is very much on the high end um from what we what our research shows us so getting somewhere down towards you know I think 70 is is probably more like the average so I think right now we're we're we're better than average um but you know that's just and and have and who are we comparing these to the other school districts so other school districts but just in in general employer contributions for for health care versus what the employee contributes I respectfully Tim I have to disagree with you on that because even a quick search shows that uh it is common for single employ single employed individuals without dependence to have 80 to 84% of their Premium cost picked up by an employer an employer's health care plan and family plans to be covered in the range of 25 to 27% by the employee and the balance by uh by by the employer on that and that's across a number of things 7030 is outside the range that I've been able to research and if we're talking about across a very broad scale it was not something that I looked at at individual school districts further to that there comes a point where if the if these kinds of increases are what people are going to be asked to pay is it really a benefit and if it's not really a benefit what value is that benefit to the people who might in fact be working for a public employer because the benefits tend to be covered a little bit better than the private sector giving them the opportunity to guarantee the health of their family and make that a reason for their retention um if a if you've got employees who see it no longer as a benefit they may as well go work for somebody else and even though they're going to make more money and pay a whole lot more in healthcare their balance sheet at the end of their day might look better and uh you know I don't think that that's the heart and soul of people who choose to work in the public sector whether they are doing it as a first job or a second job having already had a successful career somewhere else they're trying to give back and there is a duty at some point to make sure that these employees don't get strapped simply because of a choice about asking people to pay so much more for their health care cost I I think even with these increases we've showed in those slides we're still competitive with those and if you even just go right down to Broward below us the the family plan for them is I I don't know what it is off top of my head but I remember it being something around $600 um a month what what the employee contributes ,600 ours is three something so we're still very competitive and you know your numbers on on the split of employee employer a little different than what I found I you know every District's a little different um a lot of the districts were in the 70s um I think there was only one that that we found that was better than us on that um but from what I I saw was you know for for individual was more like a 70 to 80 and then for fam 60 to 70 so I I think we're I think we're in the appropriate range and and again on this one it's just comes down to we just that's not what we have set aside for for Health Care increases we've we've held off increases for a long long time that so much so that you know with the with Hefty increases we're still going to be competitive at least compared to other districts and and might some other organizations pay more they might uh you know there's that that you're always going to have that we're we're not funded in a manner to to lead the market in every single area and salary and everything like that we're we're just not you know that I know that and if we were we would we we we completely agree on that uh we have for years that we need to be better funded from the state um we but we just aren't so on on our end of it is we just have to make sure that we're making decisions that make sense financially so that we're not in a position for years years to come where we have such you know great deficits that we're we're not able to even give any bit of a raise or something like that so respectfully on on the on funding and availability of being able to do this um while we may agree that the state underfunds public education there comes a point where the local authorities have to do what is necessary with the resources given to make sure that they can retain their effective employees to do the job and achieve the mission that they they are in essence established to do and every single bargaining unit represented here today has a role in the safety and the security and the education of children so that they feel that they've got an opportunity in their life to to grow themselves uh and to live a life of success as a result of that education and and with respect to the money side the spreadsheet that I've shown clearly indicates um I'm going to grab that I mean I know yall have seen it um clearly represents that the cost to the district for our offer over two years outside of the 8020 split is $25 million that is less than half of what the district put into the fund balance this year over and above they put in $60 million into the fund balance in the last year and this is granted a a fairly good chunk of that but believe me when I I tell you that $25 million is a lot easier to come out of that fund as a one-time expense since as it's regularly said to me shows up because of one-time savings it's a lot easier to bring that out of there than for u a person who is a PA of professional or custodial staff or a bus driver to go home at the end of the day and say I'm sorry Johnny I don't think I can take you to the doctor tomorrow because we can't afford it and I'll just say this is Katie for the tape recorder for the PBA you can't just look at the school districts we as the PBA have to look at the other police departments and we represent most in Palm Beach County and Martin County and I've worked here four years and I don't think I've seen anyc increases let alone this high amount and I'm just looking at PBSO they cap any the sheriff can always split any increase 9010 and he hasn't at least the four years he's always be that cost because he understands that's a benefit that you need to have and the PBA is composed of high-risk m MERS who do usually have to remain fairly healthy so um I just don't think it's right for them to shoulder such a high cost so it kind of seems like the district just won't go any I mean without hearing something new I don't know go any further but that's where we are well for the the record I do need to also say that you know the county is very different the county can set their own millage rate which they have been doing and so they do fortunately for them have significantly more money to work with than we do as a school district and so we really have been prioritizing raises for employees and um this is not an increase that just came about this year we've been working with the unions for now three years expressing the need that there is going to be an there is a need for an increase in health premiums we were hopeful that during covid that that spike in covid was going to recede and go back to pre-co levels it did not we really needed to have an increase in the health premiums last year so that increase that we're seeing this year is not an increase of just this year it's an increase as a result of the three prior years so you have to look at the wage increases that have been received over last year last several years that's what's going to offset this so it isn't just taking away the increase this year should have been I gave you time to speak and then Mr long haer in terms of your spreadsheet yes it very it it comes down to numbers we're using Actuarial numbers these are not numbers that have being calculated by me not being numbers being calculated by our our finance department they are being calculated by actuaries that is their job and that our actuary told us we needed an increase last year our actuary said we needed an increase the the year prior to that and we as a group decided three years ago that we would wait and see what the numbers look like wait and see if the health claims started to recede they did not and so just looking at the last two years and saying okay we're going to take this this increase and we're going to pay for it over the next two years and not consider that there are going to be increases over the next two years we're just put kicking the can down the road and you're making it a bigger burden on your your bargaining unit and So you you're not even considering what we've said that we have a 20 million Gap now at the end of this year we have a $2 million gap just getting up to the reserve of what we're required to have under state regulatory purposes you cannot use one-time funds for recurring increases because all that's going to do is say okay we're short $20 million this year let's put in $20 million well now claims go up another1 million so now we're short $30 million come that next year you're not doing a benefit to your your your employee group so and then for for the district to absorb $88 per paycheck that is equivalent to $42 million so yes we can put $42 million into benefits but that is coming out what's available for for raises we have as a district one pot of money we do not have the ability to raise our military we do not have the same ability that the county does I wish we did we do not our millage rate is set by the state legislature and it's also tied to our enrollment so we have to look at where we stand from an enrollment perspective as well I'm going to have to correct one of your numbers there Heather the $88 is not per paycheck it is per month that's $21 million a year and you you're talking about the Actuarial numbers I I understand they they're but let's be fair too they're hired to present a particular plan and quite honestly I've accepted their number in my spreadsheet um I'm going to go back to it yeah but that number is as of the end of this year you know what they're projecting for the end of next year so it's it's still a projection as to and then it's going to increase you know that's that is what we were looking at now don't you guys provide the the base numbers for that no we do not provide the base numbers it's based on actual claim information these are not of numbers they're looking at actual data but isn't this based on future projections though for the the shortfall of the 48 million yes that is based on what the projection is to be by the end of next year so then we do pro that's what we're projecting it to be in the next no but then he's adding what Mr lher is saying is that it's going to stay $48 million into 26 as well no I did not Heather respectfully Heather I did not I cooked in 3.2% more increase if the claims this year if the base number from from from this year um if it's if we're going to be $48 million behind and we add that to what is needed for 2025 we go up from $23 million total expected to be collected for this year to the 251 now in this in this funding model 26 of that is covered by the increase that we're offering and what is left is 21 million to fill on the back we add in 3.2% growth which is another um 8 point yeah it's another even $8 million and that those two numbers together get eradicated except for the final 3.3 million at the end of 2026 we are not talking about going backwards here we're talking about moving forward to fill this Gap in a way and the total of these two numbers is the district's total amount that they would actually contribute above the 88 20 split to make that happen and that money can come out of one-time funds because the backfill is not a recurring expense we're not talking about the backfill I mean I mean we're not talking about the backfill right now so I don't understand I don't understand what you're what you're getting at with your numbers you're saying you want to do $111 you know so $111 uh per paycheck is only going to be let see $5 million right $11 per paycheck based on what enrollment are you're using I'm using 20,000 so that's $5 million for based on uh what would be contributed by the employees and then you're saying 88 what are you saying the district would your proposing $44 per pay period $88 per month and so that's 21 21 million so that's right so my numbers in line uh in line three under some uh paid into the district some paid in uh for employees those numbers are accurate and then in the next year when the same amount is increased then those numbers double because my my per current deduction or my current per employee or should say per payment per pay cycle cost is $10 that I know it comes out for me next under this plan I would pay 21 next year and then the year after that I would pay 32 but you're not you're not including any increase in 2026 absolutely 3.2% that's why we go from 21.6 million to 29.6 million you're just doubling the amount though I'm doubling the amounts here because this increases because increases I'm assuming a 3.2% increase in the actual amount needed for the fund consistent with this year's 3.2% increase you want a different number no there was not an increase of 3.2% in claims the increase in claims was more than 3.2% if I may I need to share a different screen to show you what we're looking at and that we are using the information that we've been provided 3.18% is the current increase right now for this year over the prior year I use that and assume that for the year following I'll have to go back and recalculate I don't believe that that's what the ACT increase now there again it's your spreadsheet that's all I can say no I know but I don't know what you're looking at I have to actually go add up the number myself because I that is not the actual right there compar to I don't believe that that is accurate but again now okay if that's not accurate and this is a Lynch from PBA if that's not accurate how do we supposed to know all the other numbers are no it's not that it's accurate it's not that it's not accurate it's like what is that number including and so I have to go back and I have to review it to see what the actual increase is I do not believe that the projected increase for this year is three a 3% increase so I'm just going to go back and look to verify what the numbers are it will be based on these numbers it's not going to be changing these numbers in any way and it's just going to be going back and looking at those exact numbers just to to ensure that both of them are are both including whether they're including the reduction in the prescription rebates or not okay so these numbers actuary though who provides these to the actuary the actuary receives those information the information directly from our third party administrators so whether it's United healthc Care okay so it's from it's from us they work for us or they work for you I should say so what I'm saying is these numers are provided to the actuary at whatever you basically they can be put together any way we want you want them to be put together and I'm not saying that you're not doing it correctly but if you're going to change numbers to project numbers differently than what they are in in um on on face value I think that's where the the problem is I think we all know actuaries can make things uh different they're saying you're wondering what's included in that right I just right that's we're not changing any of the numbers the numbers are the numbers these are numbers that are provided that are actual numbers from our third party administrator I just need to look to see is that actually forecasting out through December because there are fluctuations and claims throughout the years the increase could look differently at different points during the year I just have to ensure that that is the actual forecasted increase in claims expense for fiscal year 24 I do if it is and that's what it ends up being it would below be well below what the national trend is because the national trend is five plus percent and so that's what I have to go back to verify not changing any of the numbers the numbers are the numbers and everything we're presenting is information that is directly from the action AR so there and there are no additional costs these are straight just claims um claims data which is what we actually forecast on um but like I said I just have to go back and verify um because this spreadsheet is is prepared by us but it is based on the information provided by the actuary and and at times the way that I look at what the actual increase in claim should be it should exclude the prescription rebates because those prescription rebates are something that is not um guaranteed and so I have to make sure that that that will change uh what that increase in um what the expected forecasted increase in health claims is well that would be a respectfully that would be a big concern for me because the prescriptions are paid for by the members of the plan and if we're paying that and there's a rebate we should realize the benefit of that rebate 100% And we do and that is applied but that is broken out as a revenue number not as an expense number so when you're looking at and you're building it out and building out your forecast you have to break out the prescription rebate separately from your claims because they need to be forecasted separately but then let's make sure that we bring those rebate or or a forecast of those rebates back in as well because that impacts the total cost necessary to fund the plan which then is passed on either as costs or savings to the participants of the plan and we do if you go back and look at all of the presentations that we've provided that is what we do we break out the revenue and we break out the actual plan costs so so that is that is a more accurate way to forecast it um because those prescription rebates have a completely separate trend line than those of the claims and so all of that information um has been how we as a district have reported it um you've asked for some specific information so Miss Bolton has been very generous in in actually taking the information and pulling the information off of those Actuarial reports which are quite comprehensive um I just want to go back and look at it in a format and the normal format that I look at it by breaking out the actual claims and revenues so and if you're looking at the the Gap so that Gap is not just $20 million the Gap is actually $40 million because we are $20 million below we are projected to be by the end of 2024 $20 million below what we are required to be at for state regulatory purposes so it's not a $20 million shortfall it then would be a $40 million shortfall that we're looking at I'll be honest that's one of that would have been a piece last year coming to this year had the District last year chosen to maintain its 80% share we would have seen $15 million of that covered right away uh the district choosing last year to depart on the increase from what was the customary uh 8020 split also has a significant negative impact on any shortfall from this year that you're Desiring to carry forward on top of the requests that you're making for additional money off of employees backs for the year or two coming up and I would say that is an inaccurate statement that I need to correct about the 8020 split because the district the health plan has been fortunate that the um the premiums were sufficient for many of those years in order to cover the actual claims the district has not been absorbing 80% of of whatever the increases are they have been born I would say pretty equally between employees as well as District through what the um what has been told to The District in the past with those plan design changes you know those are actually borne by the employee the district has also increase their premium as well um on some of those years en able in order to help offset those differences but it has not been a consistent 8020 split in terms of the increase in premiums whether it's an increase in premiums or whether it is it has been through plan design changes so I just wanted to correct you that that is that is not an accurate state and then going back to we have one pot of money as a district to work with we do not have the ability to to increase our millage rate like municipalities and the county has and so we are very limited in our funding and so what we have we've made a priority as to uh increasing employee raises and putting that into raises um as a as more of a benefit uh to District employees but there is $60 million more in the General Revenue this year than there was last year money that was allocated by the state for the education of children and it's gone into a savings account and we believe that that money can be used and should be used now in this instance to bring the fund back to where it can be solvent in a time where employees are willing to increase their contributions to bring better balance to this fund and make that a piece that can work for all of us and asking that that be done with those one-time savings for a one-time expense that's what we're asking okay but that again I I have to correct you it's not a one-time expense it's a recurring expense the only not not if it's the B not if it is the gap if if you're looking at at a fund that has $210 million that's needed and there's 190 million suppli there's $20 million gap if the if there is a step taken to fill part of that Gap in the first year and that 20 million is picked up out of one-time funds now your Gap is smaller which is what I've demonstrated over here then comes I'd like to finish Heather with The Gap when that Gap then comes smaller and then gets filled even more by the next year the Gap becomes perceptibly small and that in fact is why these two uh pieces that I showed before total 25 million over two years uh in order to get there and at that point if there was another small negotiated increase in employee premiums as far as we can project it with the information that we have been provided here regardless of whether it is fully accurate in your mind for what's going on we're at least able to show we're here today to do what we can to get there and and we're not going to make excuses about not being able to pay uh something but we are going to demonstrate that the numbers that you're asking for at the 50 and 25 literally cannot be born by anybody who is making probably less than4 ,000 a year because they will effectively have a loss against inflation and maybe some people even higher than that at $50 a pay period it's just untenable and that's why you have to go back and look at the 7% increase that was applied last year and then I also need to correct you again you're forgetting about the $20 million shortfall we're going to end this year at so that you have to you cannot just forget about that we are going to be short $20 million this year from what required to have for state regulatory purposes and I did show not just $20 million and the district did not choose did not make an election to not decide not to fund it was an agreement that was made by both parties uh where the the shortfall was chosen you know it was an election to not fund it so we went to through this process last year we showed you exactly where the plan was and it wasn't new last year we've been going going back and talking with the unions now for three years this is not new information the district does not just have 60 million new dollars um and the district took the majority of that funds uh and put those forward um as part of raises so District raises and we don't have we have one pot of money we don't have the ability to take the same amount that we're setting aside from that $60 million and put it into raises as well as to put it into health benefits and so there this a significant amount of of uh other priorities for the district U but significant amount of the funds of the $ 57 million it's not actually 60 million it's $57 million was set aside for employee bues so is it one year we're going to get a raise and one year we're going to get and the flipflop and the next year it'll be Insurance increases offset each other because that's what it that's what it's basically sounding like you can't do both in one year but but eventually it's got to hit a bottom um no I mean really for we our our goal as we've stated from the beginning of this was to try to resolve this issue long term so that we didn't have to keep revisiting this every single year um and you know we've had raises consistent raises every year but we also had no in no real increases for 10 years so you know hopefully once we get past this we're we really are looking to to then not have the the need for such a to increase but that goes back to my question is it going to look like we're going to be going to a 5050 split on this eventually I I you know right now we're looking at this right now we have we made a determination or something like that that you know going forward would be 5050 we haven't no Tim do you all have any further discussions you want to have in a caucus to counter this last offer of ours yes please okay [Music] can we go in our own breakout room or is that just for them at the [Music] top I thought break out to it was for us all right thanks everybody for the time appreciate it um Heather does have a quick uh response on the percentage increase and and then I'll I'll wrap it up and so I'm not sure if Mr long Hoffer is on here but using the same spreadsheet the same numbers if you take the forecasted increase um in the the monthly claims in the total claims not including the prescription rebates it would be closer to a 4 and a half% increase uh which is what I would anticipate uh we still take into account when we're doing the forecast the actuary takes into account there all the revenue generated by the plan which would include the prescription reates but when you're doing the the forecasting um it there's just not the same trends that you would follow for prescription rebates as you would for regular claims and so I just wanted to it's not changing any of the numbers it's using the exact same numbers um it's just what you included and I know that including the prescription rebates was a request um from CTA which is why we include them on Miss U but they really are we usually look at them separately although that number and the prescription rebates does go into the Actuarial calculation um which we're currently at that shortfall of the $48 million which does fluctuate month-to-month based on the actual claims so Heather on that and and and we hear that um I guess simply put on that that those are real realized gains realized revenues that do cut into the equation of of the cost revenues you know imbalance that that's being presented I don't know if the district is essentially saying that because they're not guaranteed necessarily they're that four and a half is a result of acting as if they don't ex they might not exist in totality so I I don't if that's kind of to us that's kind of an extreme position if the district is saying we do acknowledge it we see annually these these revenues from the rebates and that helps fund the the position to try to bring us closer to stability if you zero them out for the sake of calculating growth that that to us is basically the most extreme position on viewing those rebates because we know for a fact that they might not be 100% of what they are this year from year to year but they're certainly not going to be zero or 10% of what they are um so just to to speak on that well can if I could just respond to that that's not what I'm saying at all I'm saying when you're trending out what the increases in claims are you have to break the prescription rebates out and look at them as an actual revenue and so we break out the revenues including interest income as well um as from the act the plan expenses there's a lot more to plan expenses than just claims there's claims claims as well as administrative costs so we use different assumptions for each of those categories so I'm saying when you're trending out the increase in claims you can't take into consideration and use it as a net number you have to look at the increase in claims separately and then you would forecast what your potential increase if any in prescription rebates so we don't forecast and increase in prescription rebates we forecast that prescription rebates will stay flat um but that's not doesn't matter what my forecast is we're not going by what my forecast is we're going by what the actuary says all of the plan expenses as well as all the plan revenues are included in that Actuarial forecast of the $48 million I'm just saying for trending purposes they Trend differently so you can't use the same trend for prescription rebates that you do for the claims that's all I'm saying so I break them out and look at them separately Heather you said uh you said 4 and a half% rather than 3.2 yes um if I if I put that number into the spreadsheet the uh the second year at balance is only $6.6 million very again very well manageable given the nature of where we have been right now and where we hope to be and I still think that still speaks to the fact that we were here today with offers to get us to the point of solvency um but respectfully we feel like right now the district's interest in the same goal assuming that it is there actually is clouded significantly by cost shifting to a 7030 model um and that's kind of what our perception is right now and and I think that actually is borne out by the content as it's been shared today I'm not sure we we came here Gordon just to to try to reach an agreement on this year's Healthcare and I and I don't disagree with you Tim I'm I'm telling you I believe you did but I think your agreement did uh really does undertake a significant cost shift or your goal for the agreement undertakes significant cost shifting at a time when the first goal ought to be getting to solvency and then seeing where these other pieces are to do it all at one Fell Swoop I think I've clearly demonstrated a large large number of employees cannot afford to do that right now we understand your position on that and um you know we we have a little bit different one but we we we understand your position so um we we do not have a counter proposal for you uh so uh we will go back to our team and and have some more internal discussions and uh know that we do have another session scheduled for next week at the same time so uh thank you very much uh all of you for your time today and have a great rest of your week all right thanks Tim thanks by thanks Tim thank you