ORDER NO. 30748 APPOINT MEMBERS TO JOINT COUNTY/CITY COMMITTEES Came to be heard this the 25th day of February, 2008, with a motion made by Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to: Approve the Committee Assignments as follows: Road & Bridge -Leonard Odom and Judge Pat Tinley Health Benefits -Eva Hyde and Judge Pat Tinley Reverse 911 /Warning System -Commissioners Williams and Oehler, Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer, or his designee, Mr. Ameron, Ingram Marshall, or his designee, Chief of Police, Fire Chief and Ray Lynch for the Volunteer Fire Departments Joint Dispatch, Fire, EMS and Law Enforcement -Commissioner Baldwin, Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer, 1St Responder Representative and Volunteer Fire Department Representative Broadband -John Trolinger And with Rex Emerson, County Attorney, being the ex-officio for all of the Committees. 30~~~ °I 30~ y~' ~` COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND TEN (10) COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT MADE BY: Judge Pat Tinley MEETING DATE: February 25, 2008 OFFICE: County Judge TIME PREFERRED: SUBJECT: Consider, discuss and take appropriate action to appoint members to joint County/City Committees to look at issues related to: Library, Health Benefits, Road and Bridge, EMS, Broadband Services, ETJ, Dispatch, Animal Control, Fire Services and reverse 911 services. EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON) NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Judge Tinley ESTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: IF PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE: Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, Government Code, is as follows: Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 PM previous Tuesday THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: THIS RQUEST RECEIVED ON: @ .M. All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation will be appreciated and contribute towards your request being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Rules Adopted by Commissioners' Court. ti Proposal for Joint City /County Committee Related to Library, Animal Control and Airport Committee to review process to implement the following: 1. City of Kerrville to become the sole entity for the funding and operation of the Library. 2. Kerr County to become responsible for operation and funding of Animal Control throughout the county. City of Kerrville and the City of Ingram will need to repeal or modify any ordinances related to Animal Control in favor of adopting the county policy. 3. Kerr County to become the sole entity responsible for funding and operation of the airport. Kerr County will create an independent board to oversee and operate the airport consistent with the vote of the citizens of Kerr County in 1970. The committee will report back to The Commissioners Court and City Council by May 12 and May 13 respectively with an outline on implementation with the goal of implementing same by the 2008-2009 budget. Proposal for Joint City /County Committee Related to Kerr County Road and Bridge Department and the City of Kerrville Streets Department Committee to review specific areas where the two departments could work together by inter-local agreement whereby the Kerr County Road and Bridge Department could assist with street construction, street re- construction and street maintenance within the City of Kerrville. The committee will report back to The Commissioners Court and City Council by May 12 and May 13 respectively with an outline on implementation with the goal of implementing a trial program by the 2008-2009 budget. Committees Related to: Health Benefits Dispatch and Reverse 911 Broadband Services The committees will report back to The Commissioners Court and City Council by May 12 and May 13 respectively with an outline of potential joint collaboration and a recommendation any budget implications for the 2008-2009 budget. Committees Related to: Fire EMS Law Enforcement The committees will report back to The Commissioners Court and City Council by May 12 and May 13 respectively with an outline 2008-2009 budget. of potential joint collaboration and a recommendation on a future timetable for further review. ~~'~ CITY OF KERRVILLE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 800 Junction Highway Kerrville, Texas 78028 830-257-8000 / www.kerrvilletx.gov March 4, 2008 The Honorable Judge Pat Tinley Kerr County Courthouse 700 Main Street Kerrville, Texas 78028 Dear Judge Tinley: Thank you for your ongoing work to pursue reasonable joint funding agreements between the County and City. The County has taken action to create several committees, and you have asked that the City assign representatives to each. The following is a list of those committees and our assignments: Committees created by Court order on February 25: Committee County Assignment 1. Road and Bridge Leonard Odom and Judge Pat Tinley 2. Health Benefits 3. Reverse 911/Warning System 4. Joint Dispatch, Fire, EMS, and Law Enforcement 5. Broadband Eva Hyde and Judge Pat Tinley Commissioners Bill Williams and Bruce Oehler, Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer (or designee), Bill Amerine, Ingram Marshall (or designee), Ray Lynch Commissioner Buster Baldwin, Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer, First Responder Representative, Volunteer Representative John Trollinger Committee created by Court order on February 28: Library, Animal Control and Airport Commissioners Bill Williams And Jonathan Letz City Assignment Charlie Hastings, Director of Public Works Kim Meismer, Director of Human Resources Jeff Wendling, Captain Kerrville Police Department John Young, Chief of Police Travis Cochrane, Director of Information Technology Kristine Ondrias, Director of General Services The County also approved a policy direction on February 28 whereby the City would take on full funding of the Library, the County would take on full funding for Animal Control (with ordinance amendments by the City), and Kerr County would fund the Airport. That direction also indicated that the County would create an independent Board to oversee and operate the Airport. The Honorable Judge Pat Tinley March 4, 2008 Page 2 I plan to discuss the general direction the staff should take in these discussions with the City Council on Tuesday, March 11. In the meantime, please know that we will work hard to accommodate any meeting schedule and will approach these assignments with complete openness and professionalism. Please let me know of any questions. Sincerely, `~~ Paul A. Hofmann City Manager rage i of i Jody Grinstead From: Eva Hyde [ehyde@co.kerr.tx.us] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:45 AM To: ptinley@co.kerr.tx.us; 'Jody Grinstead' Cc: 'Eva Hyde' Subject: FW: C' ne i ooperative Meeting Min Att nts: COK MEETING MINUTES 031208.pdf Judge, Do we need an agenda item to "report° back to the Court on the findings of the City's consultant or can this be done during the reports portion? Thanks, From: Kim Meismer lmailto:kim.meismer@kerrvilletx.gov] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 1:17 PM To: Eva Hyde; ptinley@co.kerr.tx.us Subject: FW: City County Benefit Cooperative Meeting Minutes - 031208 Eva/Judge Tinley, Attached are the minutes from the City County Benefit Cooperative Meeting held on March 12, 2008. This will be presented to City Council along with other joint services on March 25, 2008. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, Kimberly Meismer Director of Human Resources & Administration City of Kerrville 800 Junction Hwy. Kerrville, Texas 78028 Ph: 830-792-8340 Cell: 830-377-7691 Fax: 830-792-8346 03/20/2008 ~GBS CITY-CatJiVTY l~ENEFITS SERVICES 245 Commerce Green Blvd., Suite 290 Phone: (800) 308-2896!(?ireet: (281 } 295-3000 Sugar t.and, Texas 77478 Fax: {281} 245-302b1Bob.Treacy~c-cbs.org Meeting Minu#es -March 12, 2008 A meeting was held at the City of Kerrville City Hall on March 12, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. Attendees were: Kerr Countv Citv of Kerrville Honorable Judge Pat Tinley Kim Meismer, Director of Human Resources & Administration Eva Hyde - Hurnan Resource Manager City-Countv Benefits Services Robert Treacy -City of Kerrville Beneft Consultant The meeting was to discuss the results of a preliminary review of basic criteria established to measure the City/County compatibility in forming a Chapter 791!271 Interlocal Purchasing Cooperative for the purpose of securing a group medical insurance plan. The objective would be to form one group in order to spread claim cost over a iarger group, reduce retention and pooling charges, and stabilize costs over the future, Three (3) criteria were established to measure compatibility prior to engaging a full comprehensive Request For Proposal (RFP) process which would result in staff hours and additional consulting fees. Those criteria were: • Benefitstcontract terms • Demographic actuarial premium ratios • Per Empioyee Per Month {PEPM) Claim costs BENEFITS/CONTRACT TERMS A comparison was made of the two flagship plans {see Exhibit 1) offered to the plan members of the City and County. The City and County offer PPO plans. The City offers a dual choice Standard PPO/ High Deductible PPO-HRA plan with 83°~ of City employees in the lower deductible Standard PPO plan. The County offers one (1) total replacement High Deductible PPO-HRA plan. The City and County offer extremely competitive products that provide a very high level of cost/benefit value to the plan members. In comparing the CitylCounty plans, each entity has their strengths and weaknesses measuring the top benefits that drive ciaim costs. The overall comparison would necessitate a willingness for both entities to offer dual choices to the group based upon the differing product platforms and benefit levels along with a need to be flexible in arriving at two plans that both entities could agree on. Those two products would be offered to all members of both entities. Z. There are additional issues complicating this study: a. The City has an anniversary date of October 1, 2008 (same as fiscal year) and the County; January 1, 2009. b. It is recommended that bath entities terminate their participating contracts and move into the fully insured arena far a minimum of two years due to the complexities of forming a Chapter 172 Self Funded Cooperative program. The County is currently contracted under a partially self funded contract which could jeopardize the reinsurance contract should they move their renewal date up to October 1, 2008 to coincide with the City. The City/County would need to measure whether going fully insured is in their best interest. c. The City has plan year deductible and out of pocket accumulators. The County has calendar year accumulators. These issues can be managed, but each entity would have to be prepared to give and take financially and structurally in order to overcome these obstacles. Mee#ing Minutes Page 2 MANUAL DEMOGRAPHIC PREMWM RATIOS This analysis could prove to be a major obstacle for joining these two entities into a collective risk. (see Exhibit 2) Each group forwarded their census information broken out by active employees and active/retirees. The Cify does not cover retirees. The County does cover retirees. A manual premium calculation is developed using actuarial statistics including age, gender, dependents, standard benefit design, area cost factors, and activelretirees. Once that collective premium structure is develaped blending the CitylCounty demographics, each group is then run through the same variable #o develop their separate rate to see haw it compares with the blended manual. A ratio less than 1.00 indicates the individual group has a premium that is less than the collective manual. A ratio higher than 1.00 indicates the group has a higher cost factor than the blended manuals and is responsible for increasing the blended composite premium rate. The employee (EE) and employee + spouse {ES) premium ratio for the City is well under 1.04 and all others are at 1.00. The County on She other hand has much higher cost adjustment for these two demographic facts, as much as 26-34% higher. The County active workforce is older than the City and the County retiree participation only compounds this differential. These two groups are not demographically similar enough to be a good match. PER EMPLOYEE PER MONTH (PEPM1 CLAIM COSTS The last analysis of the preliminary review is to compare a PEPM claim cast over the past two years of claims performance to see whether these two groups are running in a similar manner. Claim costs drive t30% of the cast of a group medical plan. The City information has been provided to the consultant. At this date in time, the County has not provided their information to the consultant. Indications are that the claim costs are going to re-direct the manual demographic data noted above which will show that the County has a higher claim cost PEPM than the City. Actual claims data from the County is needed in order to complete this portion of the analysis. CONCLUSION Collective purchasing for the sake of collective purchasing is not a good idea. The collective group needs to be fairly homogeneous and 1 do not see this so far in our analysis. This could change over time as the City moves towards mandated retiree coverage as they approach 25,{100 citizens under local government code Chapter 175. The development of a collective RFP will be time consuming and there will be consulting fees involved. 1 am ~rnbonfident that this exercise will be worth the cost. Sincerely, Bob Tr aty, LHIC Partner EXHIBIT 1 BENEFITS ~ CITY COUNTY Lifetime Maximum $1,000,000 $2,000,000 Annual Year Deductible Famil $500 3x) plan r 1011 $1,000 3x calendar r 4th Quarter Roll Over es es Co-Insurance 20% 10% Annual Out of Pocket Famil $3,000 (3x $2.000 3x) Deductible Included Out of Pocket no es Ph sician Office Visit Co a s • Primar $25 $30110% • Specialty $35 $30110% Routine Lab/Radiolo Out Patient • Independent no charge $30/10% • Physician no charge $30110% -Hospital no charge Deduc#ible / 10% Preventive Annual Benefit $500 $500 Wellness Pro rams a e 43} Preventive Colonosco ies no char a Deductible / 10% Alter • Testing $35 copa $30 copayl10% • Serum no charge $30 copay/10% Hos ital ER Treatment Deductible l 20% $50 co a / Ded /10% RX Plan $10/$30/$5D $101$25/$35 / DAW2 Mail Order 2x co a s Mail Order - In redient Cost In Patient Rehabili#ation Services unlimited 60 da s In Patient Mental Nervous 45 da s calendar 30 days calendar/60days lifetime Out Patient Mental Nervous $35 co a l60 visits 50%; Max Allowable $70 Out Patient Ph sicai Thera 60 visits 60 visits Spinal Mani ula#ion Included in Ph sical Thera 30 visits Vision Care Benefit n/a no charge; Max Allowable $60 Kerr Gty.COK.Benetits Comparison 2D08 =~HIBIT Z KerrvillelKerr County Manual Risk Analysis Active Only Kerrville Kerr Co. EE 0.92 1.07 EE + Sp 0.88 1.16 EE + Ch 1 1.01 EE + Fm 1 A2 0.94 >55 20.47% 26.75% Active & Retiree Kerrville Kerr Co. EE 0.85 1.11 EE + 5p 0.85 1.19 EE + Ch 1.00 1.01 EE + Fm 1.02 0.94 °Ioy55 20.93°/a 32.75% EXHIBIT Z Entity: City of Kerrville Active # of # of # of # of # of AGE Male EES Comp Dep Sp Only Ch Only Fm Only X35 35 33 7 13 13 36 - 45 14 46 2 21 23 46 - 50 7 32 1 17 14 51 - 55 15 8 4 1 3 56 - 60 11 9 6 0 3 fit-fi5 5 2 2 0 0 6fi - 70 0 1 0 0 1 > 71 0 0 D 0 0 Total Male 87 131 22 52 57 # of # of # of # of # of AGE Female EES Gomp Dep Sp Only Ch Only Fm Only <35 15 10 1 S 1 36-45 10 10 1 6 3 46 - 50 3 4 1 2 1 51 - 55 2 2 1 1 0 56 - 60 6 4 4 0 0 81 - 65 3 2 1 1 0 86 - 70 1 1 1 0 0 >7i 0 0 0 0 0 Tota! Female 40 33 10 18 5 Total All 127 164 32 70 82 Note - # of Male and Female EES is Sum of EE, EE+Sp, EE+Ch & EE+Fm Note - Do Not enter in to Comp Dep Column COK. PY08-OS. WORKING ~lLE.ELlG1BLtTY CENSUS 2008 EXHIBIT 2 Entity: Kerr County Active # of # of # of # of # of AGE Male EES Comp Oep Sp Only Ch Only Fm Only <35 19 10 1 5 4 36 - 45 16 14 2 7 5 46 - 50 i 3 5 1 2 2 51-55 12 8 3 3 2 56 - 60 9 2 1 1 0 61 - 65 5 2 2 0 0 66 - 70 0 1 1 0 0 >71 1 1 1 0 0 Tofa/ Male 75 43 12 18 13 #of #of #of #of #af AGE Female EES Comp Dep Sp Only Ch Only Fm Only <35 16 7 0 5 2 36 - 45 20 12 0 8 4 4S - 50 13 6 1 3 2 59-55 6 7 4 2 1 56 - 60 15 3 3 0 0 61-65 7 2 2 0 0 66 - 70 4 1 1 0 0 >71 1 1 1 0 0 Tota! Female 82 39 12 18 9 Toia! A!! 157 82 24 36 22 Note - # of Maie and Female EES is Sum of EE, EE+Sp, EE+Ch & EE+Fm Note - Do Not enter in to Camp Dep Column Kerr Cty.PY08-09.Working Eligibility 2008 EXHIBIT 2 Entity: Kerr County Retirees # of # of # of # of # of AGE Male EES Comp Dep Sp Only Ch Only Fm Only <35 0 0 0 0 0 36 - 45 0 0 0 0 0 46 - 50 D 0 0 0 0 51-55 0 0 0 0 D 56 - 60 0 0 0 0 0 61 - 65 0 0 D D D 66 - 70 2 0 0 0 0 >79 4 0 0 0 0 Total Male 6 0 0 0 0 # of # of # of # of # of AGE Female EE5 Comp Dep Sp only Ch Only Fm Only <35 0 0 0 0 0 36 - 45 0 D 0 0 0 46 - 50 0 0 0 0 0 51-55 0 0 0 fl 0 56 - 60 2 0 0 0 0 s1-s5 © D o 0 0 ss - 7a 2 D o 0 0 >71 6 1 1 D 0 Tota! Female 10 1 1 0 0 Total A!1 16 1 1 0 0 Note - # of Male and Female EES is Sum of EE, EE+Sp, EE+Ch & EE+Fm Note - Do Not enter in to Comp Dep Column Kerr Cty~. PY08-09. Working Efiglbilty 2008