Janesville City Council to consider extending health benefits
JANESVILLE — The Janesville City Council on Monday will consider extending health plan benefits to employees’ domestic partners.
The council will meet at 7 p.m. in City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St.
A city memo includes the state’s definition of domestic partners: that each must be at least 18 years old, are not related by blood, are responsible for each other’s living expenses and share a common residence.
The proposal was suggested by council members Sam Liebert and Russ Steeber.
The council in February approved funeral leave for employees with domestic partners but a decision on health benefits was deferred until the new council was seated.
The resolution provides for both same- and opposite-gender domestic partners.
The cost of extending health care benefits is difficult to estimate and could range from less than $31,000 to more than $210,000 in the general fund, said Susan Musick, human resources director.
The general fund is supported by property taxes.
Musick said the cost is difficult to estimate because the number of city and library employees who have domestic partners is not known.
About 78 unmarried employees have single medical plan coverage, but the city doesn’t track the number of single parents with family medical plan coverage who live with a domestic partner.
The cost to the general fund is estimated at $9,915 when an employee changes from single to family medical coverage, plus $633 for dental coverage per employee.
Using the experiences of other public employers with domestic-partner coverage, Musick estimated the cost to the city’s insurance fund would likely be less than 1 percent of medical claims a year. A range of a half percent to 1 percent would be about $35,000 to $70,000 per year, based on claims.
If three general fund employees enrolled their domestic partners, for example, the city’s added cost would be $31,644. If five enrolled their domestic partners, the cost would be $52,740.
Other studies urge caution that adverse selection—that the additional people covered might be higher risk—could be 3 percent of medical claims, or $210,000 per year to the general fund, Musick said.
City Manager Eric Levitt said he has no recommendation on the proposal.
“The city manager views this more as a policy decision than a fiscal decision,” he said. “An employee with a domestic partnership would be treated in the same manner as an employee who had a spouse or a family. Thus, the fiscal impact would be no different than if an employee had family coverage.”
Levitt outlined key points:
-- The experience of other public sector employers indicates the additional cost for domestic-partner benefits is less than 1 percent of their health plan costs.
-- At the same time, there is an unknown and potential risk in extending health care benefits to the domestic partners of employees based on possible “adverse utilization.”
“We believe the criteria to determine eligibility will control any adverse selection,” Levitt said.
-- Most Wisconsin counties and municipalities do not offer domestic partner benefits unless they are part of the state health plan.
Nov 13, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wisconsin doesn't recognize "commonlaw marriage".
Nov 12, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sure! Janesville is just swimming in cash! This is the home of loads of Millionaires and Billionaires, you know! How could anyone object to such a well heeled city throwing away a few hundred thousand dollars a year just to make a political social statement! That's what taxes are for, aren't they?
In other news today, the city council is strongly considering increasing the garbage fee by $200. They further are strongly considering raising water and sewer fees by 147% and instituting a service fee of $500 for any fire and police services rendered. When asked why the city needed the extra income they expect to receive, an anonymous council member stated that social engineering costs are expected to skyrocket for the next fiscal year as the council has a number of quality of life spending issues it intends to address. When asked how they thought the city's residents could afford to pay all the extra fees, the council person said "They have plenty of money! And after we fix all of society's injustices the people will thank us for it, even if a very few of them do have to miss a meal or shut off their furnaces every now and again. After all, heating and eating aren't nearly as important as social justice." (This paragraph is fictitious, but accurately reflects some of the council members' attitudes non the less)
Nov 12, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
"
Shouldn't the money be spent on attracting businesses to Janesville so more people can have jobs?"
MAYBE this would. Think about it a bit longer!
Nov 12, 2012 at 7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think they should have to be same sex couple for 7 years like the "common law thing".
Is this even in WI anymore?
Nov 12, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
BYW- I don't care if sam sex has bennies. I see no issue with it. The questions I have are some legit issues to look into.
Nov 12, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
BYW- I don't care if sam sex has bennies. I see no issue with it. The questions I have are some legit issues to look into.
Nov 12, 2012 at 7:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Question
Does the male/female couple who never get married and who have been together for(lets say) 3 years get ins for both as a same sex couple would? If not then no insurance unless you are married or have a "union".
Does the couple(male/female) of 7 years (common law marriage) get it then? It you are going to allow same sex these bennies then you have to allow male/female bennies too.
It seems like this has come up in the past.
Same sex wants equal rights but how is this equal if a guy and gal together cannot get these bennies "because they are not married"
I agree - lets say two girls go to college for 7 years and live together. They could just claim "same sex" they share the bills etc just like the examples you set.
Nov 12, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
saxcat - Yes. Finally, a voice of reason.
mpcass - Totally agree. "Domestic partners" can come and go on a moment's notice.....this could include roommates....City employees could have someone come and sleep on their couch for a couple weeks, and get insurance coverage ???
Nov 12, 2012 at 3:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
@mpcass - comments have nothing to do with same-sex. Most of the comments about the domestic partner benefits (both homosexual and heterosexual) are fiscally based. Again, Sammy L has no clue. Vote this down council.
Nov 12, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
This has got to be one of the most irresponsible considerations by the JCC that I've ever seen. If they can rationalize this, they might as well put sidewalks in undeveloped areas with no homes or destinations. Might as well have the council stand in front of city hall and hand out bundles of $100's.
Nov 12, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
The general fund is supported by property taxes.
Did any of you "read this"=who will pay my increased property taxes? So I can pay for my new increased insurance and medicare? 1 in 5 are on Medicaid. Which is paid for by property taxes. How am I suppose to maintain my home without money? Yet we need road work done in Rock county, police, fire fighters? Which is paid for by property taxes. Doesn,t anyone see this is a fiscal issue? Not a social issue? Shake it off adults. The seniors in Rock county who helped to build this state are being thrown a side=no we are being dismissed.
Nov 12, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think all of you posting negatively about extending benefits to same-sex registered partners of City employees would have a whole different take on the idea if you happened to be one of "those" employees of the city. You know, the ones that pay the same amount of taxes as the heterosexual one doing the same job, work the same hours, are in a committed relationship with a live in partner, that are registered at the court house as being in a relationship, and who ought to be treated the same way as anyone else. My opinion is that its not anyone else's business whom someone chooses to love or be committed to as it happens to be their life, but when we intentionally exclude a group based soley on the fact that they are not the majority, that's wrong and its called discrimination folks. Have we not learned that lesson through American history? Take a look at civil rights or women's rights for example.
Nov 12, 2012 at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Levitt outlined key points:"At the same time, there is an unknown and potential risk in extending health care benefits to the domestic partners of employees based on possible “adverse utilization.”......Do you think ?...today I love her tomorrow she's kicked to the curb..when does the insurance stop. If you want coverage then pay for it .
Nov 12, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ah Sam. Fiscal and responsible. 2 words that aren't in his vocab. Vote this down.
Nov 12, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
saxcat...I like that idea.
Nov 12, 2012 at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
We need to get away from "add-on" insured folks as a whole. Treat everyone as a single. If I want to buy health insurance for someone else, that's my prerogative.
Nov 12, 2012 at 5:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah why not wait? I'm sure you would like to wait on your healthcare benefits if you were an employee wouldn't you? Probably not. This city needs to take care of all it's employees especially in a struggling economy. Why should any employee not be able to provide health insurance for their partner or spouse? “An employee with a domestic partnership would be treated in the same manner as an employee who had a spouse or a family. Thus, the fiscal impact would be no different than if an employee had family coverage.”
Nov 12, 2012 at 5:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Didn't know the city was so awash in funds so they could INCREASE benefits for anything. Why not wait til the economy picks up and housing values go up so there is a rise in property taxes to pay for this? Shouldn't the money be spent on attracting businesses to Janesville so more people can have jobs?
Nov 12, 2012 at 12:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sandman, practically every piece of business before the council involves spending taxpayer money. I'm sorry that means that sometimes you will disagree with how it is spent, but it does not mean "squandering", which is solely your opinion.
.
The parking plaza is fifty years old and concrete has a limited lifespan no matter how well you maintain it.
Nov 11, 2012 at 11:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hmmm..."$31,000 to more than $210,000." Yeah, there's all kinds of property tax money to do that, isn't there? This city can't even keep the downtown parking ramp in operating condition!
How about just saying NO! Let's focus on the necessities (you know, like ice rinks and children's museums and pedestrian over- and under-passes and...ah, sidewalk plans - ha ha ha ha ha!).
Q: Does the council ever do much anything of consequence that doesn't just squander taxpayer money?
A: (It's a rhetorical question!)
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.