Good evening. Tonight is Tuesday, April the 21st. It is now 5:30 p.m. and this is our District 191 Legislative Committee. Welcome to people in the audience and to Dr. Belmont and Stacy Selvine and our fellow committee members. We have a short agenda. The first one is on the proposed education government insurance plan and I'm going to invite both Dr. Belmont and probably more Stacy to to explain this piece of uh legislation that is being proposed. Okay. Do you have anything? No. Okay. Um Currently what's being proposed and and advocated by Education Minnesota is the Education Government Insurance Plan. This is a language that would require all employees that work in an educational institution to like Burnsville schools, that they would be enrolled in this plan across the state. The idea is that you're you're combining a pool of employees that are contributing. Therefore, the rates in the long run would stay low. That's the theory with this. As the legislation is currently written, it would actually be very detrimental for districts because of the cost just well one because of the folks that are defining who would become eligible. So, if you're a public employee with the 14 hours a week, you now are eligible for the family insurance plan at 85% or the single plan at 95% for 14 hours. Those individuals in the district currently are not eligible. Uh for most of the employees within the district if they don't work 20 hours or more in the district, they're not eligible for our insurance plan. So, all of those individuals that currently are not on our insurance plan, the district would have to pay for going forward. Now, the state is saying that well they'll reimburse districts for the additional cost as the current language is, but for us that would be anywhere between 12 to 13 million dollars with our early projections on that, let alone the cost of the plans themselves. As we have demonstrated now a number of different times, both with the the um inflationary gaps with the LR charts, um with our special ed cross subsidy, with our multilingual students cross subsidy, the state with our summer unemployment that is an unfunded mandate, and now with the 44% or 44 100s of a percent that were required for family leave, the district has received a number of unfunded mandates or not fully funded mandates from the state. So, to step into this plan as it's currently written, I I I feel like we should be focusing our attention on our student funding first. If we receive full student funding for the different areas that are obligated for us, we could probably look at improving or increasing our insurance plan if need be. That's a negotiated process at the moment. With the new statute that would be required of all districts outside of negotiations, um we would have more local flexibility and control of our plan. Our plan design um over the past well, over the past decade or so is is still running just a little above 5% annual increases, even with the recent 9 and the 18% increase. Part of that was because of inflation, but a large part of that is we adjusted our rates during COVID because not a lot of folks are actually using. Mhm. And then we had the rubber band effect. And it's like, "Oh, everybody's using, but our rates didn't keep up." And they're like, "Ugh." So, we're we're we're in a much better place right now. Um and I think the local control is important. I understand what folks are trying to do with Ed Minnesota even some districts in the western part of the state or the northern part of the state, um trying to provide coverage for their members. But again, if we would focus on the funding for our students and get 100% funding to what's already been obligated to us, I think we would be in a much better place all overall before we start focusing on being um obligated more to the state for funding these mandates. And especially since it's more driven towards the adults. Okay. And not the students. So, as it's currently written, definitely I'm not in favor. If they are going to continue with this at the next session, I doubt if it makes it through this session, but with the next session if they have the votes, it needs a lot of modifications to actually be beneficial for Burnsville in the long run. Thank you. Any questions or I just want to clarify too that it also would be requiring them to go on to the state health plan. Yeah, that's right. It would be a requirement for all. So So that would change their benefits. The the benefits and the fact that we have a what is it? A self Self-funded. Self-funded. >> So all of the money that we have stored up in our self-funded plan to kind of get us through the rainy day types of stuff going forward, all of that money would be used in the future for the employee portion of the premiums. Not to offset the district's cost as it's currently written. Mhm. That 15% for family and the 5% for single, that would be used by the employees. So the employees for the next handful of years would pay nothing for their their insurance. Okay. It right now it's not very well written. So And then um for a district like ours where our insurance um program is decent. Right? That's a negotiating factor. That's a um that gives us competition or makes us competitive. There we go. So um taking that away um Yeah, that that's another one of the >> another benefit you need to offer. Right, because you know, for years we said, "Okay, our insurance plan is a very rich insurance plan." Okay, and it is. You know, you you have a zero out of pocket and zero deductible when you roll in the HRA contribution that offsets those. Okay? And the the contribution towards like teachers is 80% with that. You go to other districts and and as a result of the cost for that, some of our salaries, especially on the entry level, are lower. Okay, than other districts. Well, now if everybody has, to your point, is on a level playing field for the insurance piece, which is going to cost us more, now we have to come up with that even more money to offset the salaries that have been negotiated over the years. Right. And not that we don't want everybody to get more money, but where's that money going to come from? And and the projections, the preliminary projections that I've heard so far is for the state will be close to a billion dollars for this plan as it's currently written. If we have a billion dollars to spend on insurance for the adults, where's the money for our kids? And then um cuz I know we have a benefits committee. Mhm. Has that been discussed there at all and has there been any feedback or input? >> Not at this point. Again, we know that at this point in time this isn't going to go anywhere. Okay. Yeah, more than likely they Right now, I think the big push that they're trying to do is secure money for funding to research this even more at the at the state level. That might get through several hundred thousand dollars for for the research on that. But again, part of that depends who's actually on the committee that's going to be researching it. And I hope this go around um the next go around will have more representatives from the districts as well as to the actual financial implications on these things. And then is this So the idea is that this would be like an automatic that like everybody would be required versus making this like an optional other plan. That's right. Right. The Which is one of the things we talked about at MSBA that if it was a an optional thing and you could opt out of it, Yeah. you know. Yeah. Mhm. No, the the idea is the reason why the the the um large pools don't work is because people that are healthy don't want to pay for the premiums in the long run, so they start opting out. More folks that start opting out, then you're left with folks who are needing to pay more, who actually have the higher expenses for the health care. So, as the the language is read now, everybody's required to be in it, which they're hoping will offset that. Again, we're looking at, and I say we're other HR directors and a a a group of folks I get together for insurance planning uh from the other districts. We're looking at um SEGIP, which is the government insurance plan for Minnesota. Yes. Okay. And their rate increases over the past decade or so has been averaging a little over 6% and that has 53,000 members. Yeah, well, what's the right number to have people in your plan to keep the cost down? Cuz you know, we're doing we're doing okay. Now, one thing I'd be very interested in if they want to explore something is stop-loss insurance. Mhm. If you want to have a pool of mandatory stop-loss that only covers our cases that are over uh $250,000 right now, I think it is. Even if it was like stop-loss required for any um plans that go over a million dollars, that'd be beneficial to us. Yeah. But, I don't think you need to throw out the entire health insurance plan for, you know, for us it's like two or three individuals that have topped a million dollars. Okay. A large pool for that would be helpful. And I'm curious what you think coming from your um background. Well, I think Stacy put it very well. Um, you know, it's one what might be good for one district might not be good for another, and especially depending on the size of the district. Um, and I think you have to look at this collectively. You know, we're we're already You can't take a district that's already got um, everything kind of wrapped up in a little bow, and then just throw it to the side and be like, "Oh, no, we're going to redo everything just because all these other districts are struggling, and so now you're going to struggle, too." Um, but we're, you know, they aren't going to struggle now, but you are. It's like you're flipping it to the other side of the coin, and I I just don't know that they're taking all of these things into consideration um, before putting this bill through. So, I we really hope that they would listen to all the districts that this will impact before making any sort of finalized decisions. Mhm. Great. Any other questions or Nothing. Great. No. Thank you, Stacy. You're welcome. >> Thank you. Um, our next agenda item is uh, communication strategy that we would want to advocate with the communications team here in terms of involving our constituents in our district to be calling and contacting their legislators on behalf of the district. So, um, you know, I know that we had met with our representatives um, and senators on with MSBA Day on the Hill. We followed up with communication, and I also know that um, squeaky wheels get heard by many voices. So, um, you know, so usually you put out like a a script. Here's the phone numbers, here are the emails of your legislators. This is what you want to say on behalf of the district or on behalf of an organization or whatnot for whatever bills are going being proposed. And so wanting to have a discussion on how we might want to approach that or encourage that here in this district to to do more advocacy or legislative advocacy on behalf of 191 and our students and families. And so there are a few bills that are being proposed. One of them is this education government insurance plan. I know that when we met with Representative Ryer, we we were you know, proposing it's like don't make it mandatory. Maybe if it's optional, you know, just you know, like this is not the the best written plan that could impact districts. And so um thoughts on on putting out something on website, social media or anything to encourage while the session is in moving. Are we able to link directly to any of the representatives? Yeah, you know, the thing that a few of the representatives who we talked to that day mentioned was that they are much more likely to listen to someone um who calls them directly or or and share something personal. But when it's a canned message or um sent like just a signature on a petition type page that they're they're not really paying attention to those. Um so something like a postcard campaign or a like um some way to make it a little bit more personal Mhm. might be um better heard. Like having them like a postcard that each person fills out their own personal message on. Yeah. Okay. Whether it's electronic or but like that there's um sharing talking points but not writing it for people because it So like that you we want you we're advocating that we want our representatives to vote no on this particular bill house number blah blah blah senate number blah blah blah and then say why yourself. Yeah. Exactly. Did that make sense? Is that feasible? Well committee members I wanted to come up to make sure I'd leaned in a little bit on this. One thing I would caution for the district is that the district itself is not really an advocacy group. We don't obviously when it comes to referendums it's not legal for us to advocate one way or the other when it comes to legislation the district as a whole typically does not has not historically. The board and the board committee legislative committee can advocate for certainly individual members of the board individual members community can advocate but when it comes to something going on the district website >> Uh across the across the website and coming from quote unquote the district it's something I'd advise against. Okay. >> But as we do with the legislative agenda going on the board's specific website this is the voice of the board as a whole that's something that can go there as long as it's clear that it comes from the board and then similarly the board or members of this committee were to send out information to people you know in the public and say as board members this is our experience this is what we're advocating for encourage you to consider advocating for it as well Um, entirely within your purview. So, like, um, when we report on our committee reports on the second meeting of the month, and we're representing the legislative committee, we could say that Yep. based from MSBA and during our discussion, we we're encouraging our constituents and us as individual board members, we're reaching out to our legislators to vote yes on these things, vote no, and kind of have it be verbalized in meeting. Yeah, absolutely. >> Okay. That's good to know. Yep. Appreciate it. >> But if we wanted to have a link on the board's webpage Similar to >> to Yeah, I I would encourage similar to the legislative agenda, um, that this committee adopts something and brings it to the board and has the board adopt it Okay. >> in a real similar way, so that, again, it can be the voice of the board Yeah. >> as a whole, and then it can go there. Got it. And that might need to be something that we, um, like, format, and then the beginning of the legislation, um, season, uh, plug in, and then have up and ready. Like, that might not be something that's up and ready for this season. Does that make sense? Uh, Executive Director Sullivan mentioned it's if the committee is worried about impact this session, I think he's right in that it's unlikely that that will make too much progress this year. Yeah. >> it's something the committee and the board feels strongly about in the future, then you could definitely >> like any legislation. Yeah, like like we've been very vocal about compensatory. Correct. Yeah. >> Yep. So, right. Okay. More than Okay. Got it. That makes sense. Um, could we have like something prepared for you to say like I mean we can do it but >> Yeah. >> Um like as your um committee chair statement but then also that same statement could be shared out by us. Yes. Individually. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yes. And list the things that are Yes. Totally. And you don't have to be the one to do that but I do have one cheat sheet on something that's that I saw another um member who is uh cuz I sit on 917's board and some of them post things too and they're doing it as individual board members so um I copied what he had once did and going hm maybe we should steal that and use it for us but it's not on this it's not on the the the medical one. It was some on some different but am like maybe that's what we should >> Like the sped the sped one the um the compensatory of course the everything on our list. >> Yep. Like yeah. >> We have those specific. And we'd have to look and see what the where they're at right now. Yes. We would have to see where some of these bills are sitting right now if they've already been like if it's already dead in the water we don't have to worry about it but >> that's coming up in the >> Yeah. Okay. So are there any steps we would like um Aaron's help with? We can certainly gather information about the stat the current status of any legislation. That would be great. >> with you so that you have it. Yeah, that would be awesome. Yep. Thank you. Yes. Any no No, this is very helpful. Thank you Aaron. Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Thanks for saving us. Making a fatal flaw. Well, I I I know we're I know like we can't lobby necessarily, so it's just that yeah, so you got I know there's a fine a fine line, um but I appreciate that. Um and so we'll get some of that information from Aaron. We can um then utilize that to create what we need to to then encourage our fellow board members to to reach out into their constituents with the same Yep. information. Sounds great. Awesome. That concludes our meeting. That was all that we had on our agenda. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.