04.02.25 Impasse Meeting Between SEIU V. The School Board of Palm Beach County

001Okay. So, we'll give everybody a minute to switch to the next meeting, which is the impass hearing. You okay? Okay. Just going to rearrange ourselves for a moment. Take out my glasses. Okay. I am convening the impass hearing in the case of the school board of Palm Beach County versus Service Employees International Union Perk case numbers SM-2024-019 and SM-2024-020. Mrs. Sinclair, please call the role. District 1, Matthew Lane, here. District two, Virginia SaviTo, here. District three, Karen Burrell, here. District four, Erica Whitfield. District five, Gloria Branch here. District six, Marcia Andrews here. And District 7, Edwin Ferguson is not in attendance. Thank you. On June 26th, 2024, the parties reached impass regarding negotiations related to healthc care benefit premium amounts and waved a hearing by a special magistrate agreeing to proceed directly to resolution of

002the impass by the board. The parties submitted a joint stipulation on March 3rd, 2025 and their recommended proposals for resolution on March 19th, 2025 to the board for review. In an amendment to the stipulation, the parties agreed that the only issue to be addressed by the board is the amount of employee contribution to the premium health care costs. Both parties subsequently agreed that the contracted plan includes calendars years 2025, 2026, and 2027, and that the board must determine the contribution premium increase for 2025. And the parties are requesting that the board also determine the contribution premium increases for plan years 2026 and 27. 2027. For the record, the parties are in agreement with this statement. All submissions by the parties have been re received and made part of the record to allow for the board

003to resolve the disputed impass issues pursuant to Florida statutes section 447.434. I will now turn the meeting over to our general counsel to the board Sha Bernard and Miss Bernard will provide an overview of the hearing. Thank you, Madam Chair. The board has received all of the records uploaded to the agenda and submitted by the parties which included a letter outlining detailed information regarding the scope and the parameters of this impass hearing. Today I will go over where we are procedurally, the board's charge and responsibility in an impass hearing and the legal standard for voting. After I go through all of the information, I will then entertain any board questions before we proceed. Okay, this case is before the school board for review of the issue presented in submissions of recommendations filed by the parties

004for settling the disputed impass issues. The superintendent is here today represented by attorneys Gene Marie Middleton and Danielle Williams. I have not conferred substantively with the superintendent or his council regarding this case since I received notice of the impass and waiver of a hearing by special magistrate. The union is here today represented by attorney Mark Floyd. The party stipulated that the single issue in dispute concerns the determination of employee healthcare benefit premium amounts to be paid by each employee participating in one of the school district's health insurance plans for plan years 2025, 2026, and 2027. The parties have submitted their proposed recommendations for premium benefit employee contribution increases to resolve the impass. The board must resolve the disputed impass issue as it deems to be in the public interest, including the interest of the public

005employees involved. Pursuant to Florida statute section 447.43 subsection 4E, the board may either grant or deny the proposed recommendations of either party or adopt its own resolution. The superintendent will be allotted 30 minutes to present his position on the disputed issue. This the union will be allotted 30 minutes to present its position on the disputed issue. There will be no rebuttal and no time may be reserved for rebuttal. The parties may make their presentations through any representative or representatives of their choosing including their council and may refer to previously filed materials referenced in the recommend recommendations uh and uh submitted uh to the board. Objections raising evidentiary issues need not and should not be made during the hearing because the rules of evidence do not apply. This is not an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, there will

006be no direct or cross-examination of witnesses by the party's representatives. Pursuant to Florida statutes 447.434C, the party shall explain their positions with respect to the disputed issue. After each party's presentation in support of their positions on the disputed issue, members of the public will have an opportunity to address the board for up to one minute each regarding this matter. Public comment will be restricted to the subject of the impass hearing only. Board members will have 30 minutes to deliberate, including asking questions of the parties and or engaging in discussion prior to voting. The board is not required to do so if it believes it has all of the information it needs at the conclusion of the presentation of the parties uh cases. Uh any if there are any questions at this time madam chair. Okay.

007Thank you. So before I go turn the meeting over to the superintendent um board members in accordance with our agenda I need to ask you do we have any disclosures and abstensions? So, seeing none, now Superintendent Burke, you have 30 minutes to present your case, after which SEIU will have 30 minutes to present. Please set the time clock before the start of each party's presentation. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to turn it over to Attorney G. Marie Middleton. Good afternoon, and may it please the board. I'm Gene Marie Middleton along with my co-consel Danielle Williams. We have the pleasure of representing Superintendent Burke today in this hearing. It has been the practice of the district and the unions to hold negotiations as a coalition relative to health benefits so that all employees would pay

008the same premium amounts. However, today's impass is only involving the employees that are covered by the SEIU contracts. The CTA, the PBA, and our non-bargaining units have already reached a three-year agreement regarding premium benefits. By way of background, the district began discussing the need to review premium rates as early as April 14th of 2022. At that time, the district informed the unions that there's been nine years without any premium increases to the employees in the high option plan and 10 years with no increases to employees in the low option HMO plan. At that time, the cost of covering a family and the employee was only $252 per month. The employee participated in our wellness benefit plan. The unions were warned that the plan actuary had projected that by 2023 they would begin to see a

009deficit to the fund balance surplus. It was projected that by the end of year 2023 that there would not be enough surplus to cover the statemandated 60-day requirement to pay premium claims. The district did ex notwithstanding the actuar's recommendation, the district was also noted to have a $51 million deficit beginning plan year 25. Notwithstanding the projections, the district opted not to increase premiums, but rather to change benefits designs and to focus on getting increased participation in the wellness program. The unions were also informed that the district would come back the following year and have a serious conversation regarding the need to increase premiums for the health insurance plan. the premium level and the cost of claims had risen such that it did not go back to our precoid trend line. The district did exactly what

010it said in 2023. The district negotiated the full cycle with the coalition to reach an agreement on the insurance premium plan for the year 2024. During these negotiation cycles though, the district informed the unions that the health care costs were not returning to prepandemic rates. Not only that, but participation and enrollment in the plan had declined and the cost per employee for health coverage had increased. During this negotiation cycle, the actuary projected a premium increase of another $50 million. Yet, the district negotiated for a $30 million increase to be covered by both the employees and the district. At that time, the projection was that the employee would pay $64 per month or $32 per paycheck for the increase across the board. The district bore the difference. The district waited as long as it could through

011the negotiation cycle of 2023 to reach a deal before the open enrollment period would expire. This resulted in a $10 per paycheck pre-tax increase to the employees. This is by no means helped the situation. It was a mere band-aid on the larger issue of the deficit in the planned surplus fund. As a result of that year's negotiation cycle, the district was again faced with the downside of a wait and see approach. The district was now projected to have to climb out of a $51 million hole. It became increasingly clear to the district that it could no longer wait. It had already seen the damage that this wait andsee approach could have. This impass today is about the downside of a wait and see approach that the district has obliged the unions and have not increase

012the premiums. This brings us to why we're here today. The coalition began negotiating as you heard for plan your 25 on March the 27th of 2024. We were negotiating with the entire coalition. But on June 26th of 24, when negotiations appeared to be unsuccessful, the district declared impass. Although we had declared impass, the district still continued to negotiate with the unions because we did want to resolve this matter in the best interest of our employees. While the district has waited on increasing insurance premiums since discussing the concern with the unions, each year the district has continued to increase our employees salaries. While the district would rather not have to have employees shoulder any portion of a need to increase health insurance premiums, this is not the reality that we live in. Increasing health premiums is

013a universal issue. It is not unique to the district. The district cannot continue to absorb the increase in claims, the cost of insurance, and fund increases to employees. The district has emphasized that increasing the take-home pay of our employees is a priority. However, it must also now balance the need to increase the surplus account of its self-insured healthc care fund with those of the district's situation. The district is sensitive to the fact that the needed increase can be jolting to hear in isolation. However, when all factors are considered, we're hopeful that the employees and the board will understand that the district has waited as long as it could to make this change and increase premiums. You will now hear from our CFO, Miss Heather Frederick, who will walk you through the financial aspects of this

014hearing. Good afternoon, board members. I'm going to walk through and and provide a recap of how we got to where we are. And it really is the the health of the plan precoid and postcoid. Going to walk through um a comparison of um school district uh premium rates to compare to peers. um as well as going through the historical raises that we've been able to provide as a district and to show that and demonstrate that our premiums are in compliance with the Affordable Care Act and they're well below the requirement required for a minimum premium amount that's considered affordable and the other considerations we've been looking at um for managing costs within the plan. So going back to plan year 12 to through plan year 20, the plan the the health plan maintained a break

015even um had a slight surplus in in several years which was a able to bolster that minimum surplus and ending fund balance that we had. The district uh increased premiums in plan years 12, 13, and 19. And there were also some premium adjustments for employees um based on the different health plans um as well as plan design changes uh during that period. Um then fast forwarding to uh co 19 and plan year 21. The plan was now facing a very significant shortfall as a result of increasing claims. Those increasing claims we hoped were largely attributable to COVID. And we were able to utilize our federal ESSER dollars, $45 million total over a two-year period to help offset COVID eligible claims. The problem was those claims were not solely attributable to COVID. And once those ESSER

016funds once there were no longer eligible um uh COVID claims to utilize those ESR funds for we realized there was just an increase in claims as a result of COVID. You can call it medical inflation. I want to walk through this chart and this chart I'm going to be using throughout the whole presentation. It is a little bit busy. When you look at the bars, the blue bar is medical claims, the orange is pharmacy claims, and the gray is the administrative cost of the plan. We utilize United Healthcare to man manage our health plan. The yellow line at the top is the premium revenue. The blue u line in the middle is our minimum is our our ending surplus that we had in the plan. And the green line is the minimum we're minimum surplus

017we're required to have by state regulatory requirements. So you can see from plan years 17 to 20 the plan was operating at a break even and our surplus was well above where it needed to be from a state regulatory purpose. Um we were almost you know nearly double u more than double actually what we needed to be close to hund00 million in surplus. But what we'll see is how quickly that surplus was depleted. And looking at the cost per employee, so during the same time period, we had that gray line is enrollment. So you can see we had a drop in enrollment in members in the health plan. And at the same time, we had an increase in the per member per cost per month. And so you know that goes to support. We were

018just seeing an increase in total cost to the plan. So now fast forwarding to plan year 22 to 24, we did notify the uh the coalition bargaining group that claims are increasing and they're increasing um primarily attributed to COVID. We utilize continued utilizing those federal ESSER dollars as we could for eligible claims. But in and in then in May of 22, the coalition bargaining group said we want to also receive the monthly claim information so we can monitor the claims at the same time real time so that we can see if the claims data starts to trend down. So on a monthly basis since May of 22, we've been providing this claim health claim information to the uh coalition bargaining group. During that year, we implemented some plan design changes to try to help stem

019the increased costs of claims um and um through some minor changes u uh within the plan. In FY23, we went back to coalition bargaining and we said claims are not decreasing. We need to actually look at increasing premiums. When you're looking at a shortfall that's that large, there's nothing more that you can do other than increasing premiums. there aren't enough plan design changes that are possible. So, in April of 23, we presented uh the actuarial uh projected shortfall of $30 million, and we were only able to negotiate a $10 million uh increase. That was split 50/50 between the district and and employees. So now you can u fast forward to plan year 22 and 24 and you can see that shortfall between the yellow line and the actual claims within the plan. And you can

020see how quickly that blue line which is the the uh surplus that we had in the plan. How quickly it dropped from being well above what was required from a state regulatory purpose to by the end of plan year 24 below the statemandated requirement. The actuary in 2023 projected we'd have a loss in the plan of 29 million and we ended up having a loss of 29 million. And in 24 plan year 24, the actuary projected a loss of 33 million in the plan and we ended up having a loss of $30 million. So the actuary has been fairly accurate in projecting what the actual costs in the plan will be. So now looking at our current situation in plan year 25, we were looking at a projected shortfall now because it was compounding because

021we didn't fund it in the years where it was truly needed to $51 million. We went back to the the coalition bargaining and said we will need to have a premium increase. We can also look at other options as well to supplement premium increases, but we will have to do a premium increase. We started at that 6462 per person per uh that would be split. It was a total ofundred uh 124 that was split between the district and employees. Uh we ended up uh negotiating with all bargaining groups except SEIU for plan year 25 increase of $55 born by the district $18 by the employees per paycheck and 26 25 for the district 18 for employees plan year 27 $11 for the district and a $6 increase of four employees. The district also agreed to

022transfer in $30 million of one-time funds to move that minimum reserve requirement up above where it was required to be because now our surplus was below the minimum requirement. So, we agreed to put $30 million of onetime funds into the plan to get up to that minimum requirement. The district then contributed a total of is going to contribute a total of $73 million over the next three years. and is taking on 80% of that total burden um compared to $19 million from employees. Um I also want to mention that I there will be a budget workshop uh later today where we're going to go through the really negative budget outlook that we're looking at from a state perspective. And so it it is challenging for the district to even provide and to com commit to

023this investment of the $73 million and to look at the impact. So what is the impact of the premium that we agreed to with the bargaining groups except for SEIU? You can see for plan year 25 there is still a slight shortfall that's projected. Um you can see at the bottom with the blue line it is now gone up um above the minimum requirement um because of the $30 million the district uh transferred into the fund. In plan year 26, we're operating at will operate at basically a break even um and we'll be um at still in compliance with the state regulatory requirement for the ending surplus. And in plan year 27, assuming a 7% increase in claims, we will be facing a a shortfall between the projected premiums and the expected claims of about

024$12 million. Um that is three years out and we are planning to still work with the coalition bargaining group uh in order to look at other options u such as plan design changes and other innovative options for employees to help reduce the the increases we have each year to hopefully close that gap by plan year 27. Uh, SEIU has proposed a um uh going through and and um reducing the premium increases in half. Um, so instead of the $18 per employee, it would be $9 in plan year 26, $9 in plan year 27 in 26, $925, $9 in 26, and $3 in 27. uh the impact of that uh results in um unfortunately we have to all when we bargained with all the other uh groups all of those agreements included a meto clause. So

025what that meant was if any other bargaining group will pays any less we will have to then honor that rate with all other groups. Um so the impact of uh reducing the u uh the premiums across all bargaining groups results now in a shortfall in not only plan year 25 plan year 26 as well as 27. So by 27 uh revenues uh will be short claims by $22 million. And that blue line you can see now goes well below the minimum required which is the green line. and it will have a $36 million shortfall as to what our minimum requirement for an ending surplus would be within the health plan. When looking at our health premium rates, uh you can see that our health premiums are competitive among all uh levels and all tiers of

026of coverage. uh our district at Palm Beach County has really um put an emphasis on dependent coverage and subsidizing and uh dependent coverage. So you can see in looking at the premium rates which I want to add are unreduced by um the health rewards um uh deduction that is voluntary for employees to participate in. Um so not even including that $50 that um employees are eligible eligible for uh to apply for we are very competitive. Uh you can see that amongst Broward, Martin, Orange, and Hillsboro uh family coverage is well over $1,000 which in Palm Beach County it's $516 and that's including the increase in premiums. um and but does not include that additional $50 that employees are eligible for if they they opt to participate in the health rewards program. I also wanted to

027go through that SEIU has had nine years of raises of 5% um is the most recent raise in 2024. Um and uh and I also wanted to highlight in 2022 the 11.9% increase for SEIU. Uh that was when the the district increased the the hourly rate the minimum hourly rate to $15 per hour. And we did that before we were statemandated to do that. Uh, so since F5% is the last negotiated increase for SEIU, I wanted to look at the lowest uh paid employee within SEIU makes $15 an hour assuming they work 180 days a year at eight hours per day. A 5% increase would be equivalent to $1,000,080. um that compared to the increase in premiums. The increase in premiums over that same time period would be $432, equivalent to about 2% of the

028salary. Um so this employee would actually be above by 3% would be netting a 3% increase. I also want to note that we need to make sure that our premiums comply with the Affordable Care Act and our premium um our lowest premium is well below the requirement for to be considered affordable under the Affordable Care Act. Uh the the minimum is uh $1,967. Um and our premium with the premium increase would be $1,272 per year. So in other considerations with the plan um is implementing wellness programs because that helps to reduce the cost of claims within the plan. So, our district has been proactive and we do offer the option for employees to participate in the the healthy rewards, which is a $600 discount per year. And we do have about 10,000 of our 19,000

029employees that participate. And we are al always looking to promote new initiatives, you know, to help people be more healthy, to help reduce cost of the plan. We're also looking at alternative plan designs, um, other options and plans. Um and that's something we can look at in the future um in order to help reduce costs on a go forward basis. And then innovative ideas like people one primary health care uh which is something that will be rolled out in January of um next year and it's a a voluntary for the employees to opt in. It's a primary care provider where they would have no co-pays and much of the prescriptions and other benefits would also be at no cost to the employee. So I just want to to uh just reiterate that the health plan

030was healthy and stable until co 19. It was that spike in claims that we now have to address because that spike did not go down and revert to pre-COVID levels. So that is what we have to address. We've been able to negotiate premiums amongst all the bargaining groups which includes some of the lowest uh paid employees within the district. So all bargaining groups ex the only one we haven't been able to negotiate with is SEIU. We've been prioritizing raises as you can see throughout that time period and our health premiums are competitive and they comply with the Affordable Care Act. Um and the SEIU's raise that was negotiated in 2024 more than offsets this increase in in premiums. Um, I did also want to to mention too that um, SEIU was notified because the the

031premium increases for all the bargaining groups went into effect as of February 1st and SEIU was notified that any they would be responsible for any retroactive increases uh, related to um, the health premiums. Okay, with that we'll pass it back to Miss Militin. In some and in conclusion, the three-year proposed increase that the superintendent is recommending for your resolution that has been accepted by the CTA, the PBA, non-bargaining groups, and also those groups that include some of our lowest paid employees. It is reasonable. It's competitive, and it is in the best interest of the SEIU. It's in the best interest of the district and the community at large. While our SEAU group does not have does have some low paid employees, as you saw, the salaries are competitive with other entities within the country as

032well as the community. After hearing from the union, it is your responsibility to resolve this issue as it you deem it to be in the best interest of the public, including the interest of the SEIU members and the members at large. Should you decide to resolve this issue by establishing premium rates for the SEIU members that are lower, I want to remind you that the settlement agreements with the others had a meto clause, which would result, as Miss Frederick has stated, in another hole that the district will have to dig itself out of again next year. Thank you for your time and attention this afternoon. Thank you. So, the school district is completing their their portion. We are, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. So, we're now going to turn the meeting over to the SEIU.

033Um, for the timekeeper, please reset the clock. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Mark Floyd. I'm an attorney with Mayerswan Floyd, and I have the privilege and honor to stand before you today representing the SEIU, Florida Public Services Union, a union that represents more than 6,700 of your general employees. And when we talk about your lowest paid employees, they're in our bargaining unit. I want to walk you through what I want to do today. First, I want to discuss with you what we are here to do. Then, I want to tell you who we are. Then, I want to tell you the principles that have guided us through these negotiations and we hope will guide your decision today. I want to tell you why you should adopt the FPSU's proposals. And in

034the end, as noted, it'll be up to you. It's your decision. You get to decide which side are you on. To be clear, we are not here to debate whether or not there should be an increase in the health insurance premiums. Everybody understands the situation. Everybody understands that health insurance costs are rising. Everybody understands the predicament faced by the school district. What we hope to do today is to convince you that those earning a lower wage should not be forced to incur the same increase in cost in health insurance premiums as those who earn a higher wage. And I don't mean just a little higher wage. I mean a lot higher wage. It's our hope that you will recognize the disperate impact the district's proposal has on our employees in our bargaining units versus the

035other employees. The district proposes increase that increases that total over the next three years $84 per month or $1,08 per year. And this comes on the heels of last year, an increase of $240 per year, $20 per month. The district in its exhibits referred to that 2024 increase as minor. Today, they referred to it as a band-aid. But you have to understand that increase last year was more than 1% of the annual wage of many of our employees. We are proposing increases that are exactly half of what the district proposes. Our increases as we proposed them would be $18 per month or $216 per year in 2025, then again in 2026, and then $6 per month or $72 per year in 2027. In total, that's a $42 per month or $54 per year increase. Now,

036as explained to you, the only charge that you have today is to determine how much your employees should pay for their health insurance. The statute says that you are supposed to make that decision in the best interest of the public, including the best interest of the employees in the bargaining unit impacted by your decision. Only our bargaining unit is impacted by your decision here today. And I encourage you to consult your general counsel before you make a decision about the ability of you to consider the impact on other bargaining units before you make that decision. You are only here to resolve our collective bargaining agreement to resolve what the employees represented by the FPSU will pay for health insurance in 2025, 26, and 27. When you consider the best interest of the public, including the

037employees in our bargaining units, I assume that it's clear our proposal is the one in the best interest of the employees. But I hope by the time I'm done today, I'll convince you it's in the best interest of the public at large. Let's talk about who we are when it comes to the children that this school district serves. We are the first and last point of contact for any kid that rides the bus. We are the first to see the face of a child who might have had a rough night, might be scared to go to school, or might otherwise be in need. Our bus drivers, some of whom are up at 4:00 a.m., drive tens of thousands of miles for tens of thousands of hours carrying the most precious cargo we have. They deal

038with traffic and rambunctious kids at the same time while operating on a schedule. We are the ones who clean up after our kids. Sometimes dealing with unknown substances, biohazardous waste, or simply the me messes that the rest of us would like to walk away from. We are often the first ones in the building and the last ones out at night. We are the mechanics, the HVAC techs, the painters, plumbers, welders, distributors, glazers, landscapers, carpenters, exterminators, and more that keep your buildings open and habitable. Keep your buses and vehicles on the road and keep your equipment in working order. We are the ones who feed and nourish our kids, making sure that no child goes hungry and that each has available to them a properly and hygienically prepared meal or two every day. We are the

039ones who provide support and assistance throughout the school district. Whether in front in the front office of a school, in accounting, human resources, emergency communications, grant writing, IT, AV, tech support, in the libraries and media, purchasing, operations, even workers compensation. And while I've rattled off a lot of classifications that we represent, there's one that I do want to particularly mention today. Our paraprofessionals. Paraprofessionals build relationship with students. They help manage classrooms. They help ensure that every child gets the attention and support that they need and deserve. They create a more effective learning environment so that students, particularly those with special needs, thrive academically and emotionally. And I mention them specifically today because today, the first Wednesday of April, is paraprofessional appreciation day. Thank you to our paraprofessionals. While we appreciate the job that our paras

040do and the job that all of our employees do, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that those same pair of professionals that I just talked about have an average annual salary of $21,555. $21,555. Our highest parah makes $30,813. She's a paratu at a title one high school. Look, I can't recite every job classification, and I'm not going to go over every wage for all 6,700 employees that we represent, but know that they are there to support the system that allows this school district to function and achieve its purpose. They may often be the silent faces of this school district, those with some of the most thankless jobs, but there should be no doubt they are as essential as any other employee, and they are integral to that A rating that I saw blasted

041on the screen before this meeting. Why do we seek to have you adopt our proposals? What has guided us through these negotiations? Look, health insurance is a real conundrum. For better or worse, we are all stuck in a system in this country where health insurance is employer dependent. We are stuck here because of the tax laws of the United States. Now, I don't want to get bogged down in the Internal Revenue Code. But I do want you to understand that the tax exclusion for employer sponsored health insurance coerces employees into participating in their employer's health insurance plan. That coercion comes from the fact that all of the money that the district pumps in to the health insurance and all of the money that the employees pay for health insurance is excluded from taxable income. For

042the district in 2024, that's $157 million. For the employees, it was $45.5 million. We can't afford to do it any other way lest all that money become taxable. What it means is, like it or not, we're stuck. What it really means for your employees is that this is not an open market. Your employees are not free to go shop for a better deal to find coverage tailored to their needs on more favorable terms. Your employees must use the insurer that you select. They must choose from one of the three coverage plans that you provide and they must pay the health insurance premiums that you decide. How much these employees pay is entirely at your discretion. When exercising that discretion, we hope you'll recognize three things. One, proportional sacrifice. Two, the diminishing marginal utility of money.

043and three, a reduction in inequality that's achieved by adopting the union's proposal. Proportional sacrifice. Now, when we typically think proportional sacrifice, we think of taxing and giving. Here I go with that tax code again. But our tax code is based on proportional sacrifice. We have a progressive tax code that at its core says the more you make, the more you pay. That is the fundamental tax philosophy in this country. It's not just a concept that flows from the tax law. Leviticus in the Old Testament tells us to give onetenth of what we produce. Now whether that's grain or fruit or a tenth of our income, the more you produce, the more you tithe. The concept of proportional sacrifice is embedded in society. We even see the concept applied in Medicare premiums under our own Medicare

044system. The more you make, the more you pay. Whether it's before you participate in Medicare through payroll taxes or when you're participating in Medicare, your premiums will escalate the more you make. We think the same concept should apply to the health insurance premiums charged by the school district. We recognize the health insurance premiums aren't a tax, but perhaps it should be regarded the same. When an employee or anybody else needs health care, they have to have it. It doesn't matter who you are, what you do. It doesn't matter how old you are, or what you make. Health care is a basic necessity. When you need it, it must be there. We believe the goal of this school district should be that health insurance be attainable for every one of its employees. And to do that,

045we believe the district needs to price its health care based on a proportional sacrifice. Those who make less should pay less. We think you should also recognize the diminishing marginal utility of money. I'm not getting into an economics discussion either with my tax discussion, but the principle is this. The additional satisfaction or benefit that a person derives from having one more unit of money, one more dollar diminishes with the more money you have. It's a pretty simple concept. The be best way that I know to explain it is in the immortal words of arrested development. $2 means a snack for me, but it means a big deal to you. Now, that song's from 1992. So, that $2 is probably $5 today, but the concept remains the same. $5 means a snack for me, but to

046others it might be food for a day or more. The more pragmatic explanation of this principle is this. The district proposes an increase in health insurance premiums from 2025 to 2027 of $1,08 per year total spread out over three years. But that's where we end up. To some, that may not seem much, but to others, losing more than $1,000 per year means the world. To an employee that makes 60,000, 70,000, 100, 200, 300, for some of us in this room, almost $400,000, losing $1,000 a year doesn't affect our life choices. Some of us will spend $84, the district's monthly proposed increase, on a single meal, maybe on a single ticket to a theater or a preferred athletic event. If we take our entire family and we go out to dinner and maybe throw in a

047few drinks, we might spend $1,000 in one night. The district's annual increase. But to an employee that makes $28,000, the average annual pay of the more than 6,700 employees that we represent, $1,000 increase, even spread over three years, means having to make choices between health insurance and other basic expenses like housing, food, and transportation. I know you all received the publication from the SEIUFPSU. I put the cover on the screen. I'm not going to go through it. It's exhibit F in the union's exhibits. But I do want to point out a couple of the stories, the testimonials that are contained therein. One is the story of an employee at high risk of a serious medical condition who foregoes health insurance coverage because they can't afford it even at the current premium levels. That employee is

048delaying medical care and probably going to have a more adverse outcome. Another is from an employee who recently decided to enroll in the district's health insurance, but due to the premium deduction had an almost 50% reduction in that employees take-home pay. A lot of your employees don't suffer like that. A lot of your employees when they choose to get health insurance, they don't have a 50% reduction in their take-home pay. These are not problems faced by higher wage earners. I also want to talk to you about the reduction of inequality. To be clear, whatever decision you make here today is not going to eliminate the inequalities inherent in our current health insurance system or the inequalities faced by your lower wage earners. However, you have a chance to slow the growth of inequality by imposing

049a lesser health insurance premium increase on your lower wage earners. A common theme in education, and one that I found on the district's website, is to promote access to quality education and vocational training to equip students with the skills needed for decent work and economic advancement. We believe that same concept should apply to health care. We hope that the district will promote access to health insurance and thereby health care by recognizing that lower wage earners still have to pay for housing, food, and transportation. Any system that forces an employee to choose from among these basic necessities is a flawed system. And understand that if you adopt the district's proposal, you are only exacerbating that flaw. There's another story in that book that I wanted to highlight. It's an employee who had to vacate a $1,200

050a month apartment to move into an $800 a month trailer because they could no longer afford the $1,200 per month. These are real life choices faced by the employees that we represent. And the concern is real. Similar to the FPSU's publication, we also gave you as exhibit G the Schindberg Center for Housing Studies from the University of Florida, their 2024 annual report. I'm not going to review the annual report with you, but I do want to point out a couple of things. One, on page 14, they reported that in July 2024, the median rent in Palm Beach County was one $1,827 per month. It's a 39% increase from July of 2020. They reported on page 30 that the 2023 median price for a single family home in Palm Beach County was $681,000. For a condo,

051$273,000. And for a mobile home, $168,000. I think those numbers are staggering. Imagine if you made $28,000 per year. They're beyond staggering. The rising costs of housing, the rising costs of food, the rising costs of transportation, and the rising costs of health insurance and medical care are worsening the inequalities faced by your lower wage earners. To help address the problem, we want you to change what we admit has been a long-standing practice of the district that all employees pay the same for health insurance care. We think that's got to change. So, how do we do that? We start by adopting the union's proposal. So the current premiums which have already been reviewed uh are exhibit A in the union's binder. I don't think that I need to spend much time on them. Uh but what

052the union's proposing, which is exhibit B in the union's binder, is an $18 per month increase in 2025, an $18 per month increase in 2026, and a $6 per month increase in 2027. You will see that reflected in the premium scales in exhibit B of the union. What we're asking you to do today is adopt those premium scales. All the other language of the collective bargaining agreement is set. It's not at issue. It's merely what numbers will fill these tables in. We propose this is what they should be. Increases of 18, 18, and six. Now, we think an important consideration when determining how much you should increase health insurance premiums for your employees is the impact that it will have on annual wages. The union's proposal in total at the end of the third year

053will for our average employee cost them 1.77% of their current annual wage. The district's proposal for the average employee that we represent would cost them 3.54% of their current annual wage. I think that's a ridiculous number. And I think it's even more ridiculous when you consider the other two bargaining units, the PBA represented in blue and the CTA represented in yellow. for their average employees the impact is 1.48% and for the CTA 1 point I apologize 1.65%. The impact on both police officers and teachers is half of the impact of the district's proposal for general employees. half. Meaning you could have given them twice the increase and they still would not be impacted as a percentage of their annual income in the same way that your general employees will be under the district's proposal. That's

054crazy. That's crazy to me. You have to understand the impact that you have on wages. Now the district sort of took a different approach. and they said, "Well, the increase, the salary increase that the district has on the table in negotiations will more than cover it." Okay. Does that mean I don't get an increase in pay? And the district put in their exhibits, district exhibit 10, a comparison showing exactly that, exactly what they told you today, that the raise is enough to cover it. And I thought, well, if that's how they're going to approach it, let's check it out. And they're right. If you look, and you don't have this in front of you, you'll have to look at the screen um because I didn't put it together till after we got the district's exhibits.

055But the district's proposal, as noted in district exhibit 10, it is covered by the raise that would be received by SEIU employees. But what it does is it takes that 4% increase and it turns it into a net increase of 2.46%. If we march that out over the next two years and apply the district's proposal to 25, 26, and 27 here in orange, we see the net. Let's hypothetically assume we get 4% increases each year and we implement the district's health insurance premiums. After three years, our employees would net what should be 12 and a half%. They'd only walk home with 8.63. 63. Meanwhile, the police and the CTA should get the same 12 a.5% raises compounded. They walk home with almost 11% 10.9 and 10.72 respectively or respectively, excuse me. Let's look at how

056different the union's proposal is, though. The union's proposal, and this has the police and CTA rates that they've already agreed to, but takes the SEIU rates and cuts them in half. are 18 186. The union's proposal would net the SEIU employees out of that 4% increase 3.23%. Over the course of all three years, SEIU would net 10.56%. And look at the difference. We're still less, but police and CTA would net 10.9 and 10.72. As already noted, that is proportional sacrifice. That is spreading the risk. That is recognizing that when you charge us, the employees we represent, an additional dollar, it has a significantly greater impact than it does on a police officer or a teacher. Now, the district says, "Well, let's look at how other employers treat their employees, what they charge." I want to

057show you one the district doesn't show you, although it's in their exhibits. That's how Palm Beach County treats their employees. I think when you're talking about our general employees, Palm Beach County is probably your largest competitor. They have a job for almost every job in the classifications that we represent. This chart shows you, which is union exhibit D in what was previously provided to you, but this chart shows you if you implement the union's proposal for the high option HMO, Palm Beach County's got you beat in every category significantly. For the individual employee, you would require under the union's proposal, employees to pay $128. Palm Beach County requires 49. For family coverage, you would require 498. Palm Beach County 442. For the low option HMO, for the employee only, you would require 88. Palm Beach

058County requires 31. When we get to family, they would be even 340 340. I'm not going to really review the third part because you have a CDHP, which is sort of a farcical name, consumerdriven health plan. Uh, I don't really choose to need the healthare, but they have a POSOS. I'm not disparaging their plan. It's a point of service plan. So, they're not really apples to apples. I'm going to focus on the high and the low because those are they've got you beat across the board. This is Palm Beach County. And the district's response is, well, they get a they have a different funding source than we do. Okay, fair enough. and the district points to the other school districts and they show you this chart here. Fine. Look at what the other school districts

059provide. They seem to not point out to you that there are six school districts on their chart, including yours. Out of those six, three of them provide at least one level of coverage to an employee at no cost. No cost. Broward provides three levels of coverage to an employee at no cost. But Broward, Martin, and Hillsboro all have at least one option available to employees at no cost. That is what we would say is proportional. That is what we would say recognizes that we need to reduce inequalities. But that's not the proposal here. I do want to note that I I sort of marked up this chart. You know, if you implement the union's proposal or the district's proposal based on what employees pay, you're going to be second out of sixth in the high

060option HMO, but you will be, which is not bad, right? But you'll be fourth out of six in the low option HMO and the CDHP plan. There is absolutely not one reason that Palm Beach County should be below the median when it comes to providing health insurance to our employees. Nobody in Palm Beach County should do that. The school district included. The district says, "Well, costs are going up." We included as an exhibit, exhibit E. It's a busy spreadsheet. I'm not going to make you pay any attention to it, but I do want to point out that we got updated numbers from the district in January and the total spend in 2024 was just over $222 million. That's combined. The only reason I point that out is that's an actual number for 2024. And when

061you go to districts exhibit 13, they give you the most recent report that we had in negotiations from Gallagher, which was through September 30th, 2024. But I want to note for you that their 2024 projection for the total spend on claims was 221868. They were almost spot on. That's impressive. On this chart, you have the history. That's the same chart that you were shown before. 2020, your per employee per month expense was $827. When we talk about funding the health insurance, I've highlighted on this chart for you. Employees paid 21.9%. You can march that through year by year. The per employee per month costs go up. There's no disputing that. 827, 928, 930, 964. But employees consistently contribute around 22% of the funding. That continues in 2023 where we have a per employee per month

062of 964. In 2024, we have a per employee per month of $9.95. The reason I want to point that out to you is these projections say that by 2026, we're going to go to a per employee per month of $1,110. It's a $115 increase. Under the district's proposal, in that same time period, they will increase what the employees pay per month by $72 or 62.6% of that increase in the per employee per month cost. They're going to share 63% of the increase with employees. Under the union's proposal, that same time period, our contributions would go up by $36 per month or 31.3% of the projected increase. Now, mind you, the cost fund sharing up to now has been around 22. We're 50% higher than that. Our proposal is reasonable. We're kicking in 31.3% of that

063projected increase versus the district asking us to kick in 60 3% of that increase. Look, it's your decision. In many ways, we've come to you today hatinand. The way that this state has chosen to resolve a labor impass allows the legislative body like yours to resolve it however y'all see fit. We are at your mercy and we trust that you'll make the right decision. But no, this is real life. Your employees are being forced to choose between health care and other basic expenses like housing, food, and transportation. We are not talking about sacrificing a $5 cup of coffee or a night out on the town. We are talking about being financially forced to move into a trailer and pray that storm doesn't come. We are talking about choosing to forego health insurance and not getting

064that preventative care that could prevent a worse outcome. We're talking about having health insurance, not how much employees are going to pay for health insurance and whether or not it should be aortioned based on income. We believe that it should. Thank you. Thank you. The board will now hear comments from the public. Please step up to the microphone. You will each have one minute to address the board. Your comments must be related to the subject of this impass hearing only. The microphone will be turned off when the time limit has been reached. When you speak, please state your name for the record. And we all thank you for coming today. Good afternoon. and Alfonso Mayfield, president of SEIUFPSU. So, I think Mark did an amazing job laying out our position. I actually want to focus

065on one more narrow point and it goes to what was said at the beginning of the school district's presentation. Are we a coalition or are we being used as a bargaining chip? And the reason why I asked that is that our our members starting pay is less than the other units. But I think that they the school district is locking us into an agreement the fact that their increase uh that they would increase rates. And we're not arguing that. We know that we would have to increase rates. We're saying yes, but we're saying that we should not pay the same as those who make more. Our union has a strong history of working with the district and making hard choices and hard compromises. We did not negotiate the me too clauses. My largest concern is

066the dynamic that this process is set up. the fact that the school district went and met with the teachers and came up with an agreement that disproportionately um uh helps them and PBA. Thank you. Does anybody else want to speak who's here today? Okay, seeing none, the board will now go into deliberations for 30 minutes where it may ask questions. To the timekeeper, please set the clock and board members, please use your iPads if you would like to speak. Okay, first I'm going to call on Mrs. Whitfield. Thank you very much. Um, this has been a very interesting conversation. I'd like to thank all the presenters for um, you know, really laying out so many salient points. Um, I did have a question for um, the school district team about participation in health insurance. Are

067we seeing a lower number of people participating from SEIU versus um our other um health or other employee groups? One moment. I would like our risk uh director of risk management Nancy Bolton would have that information. Okay. Um, also another question that I had while she's coming up. Um, just really trying to understand about as we're going forward and the negotiations. Um, I was very intrigued by the conversation that Mr. Floyd came up with about um, the options within other school districts for a completely free plan and I'm curious if that's something that we've looked into and like how does that work out within our school system? Go ahead. uh that was something that we did look into at the district and then also as part of coalition bargaining when we brought forward the uh

068proposed increase in rates. Uh we also recommended looking at possibly changing the dollar amounts based on the tiers within each of the categories because as you saw we heavily subsidize the dependent coverage compared to the other districts. And the coalition bargaining group determined that they wanted to keep the premium increases the same against amongst all because they wanted to provide they thought it was more important to provide that lower cost for the dependent coverage because it's really unattainable for anybody in those other districts the dependent coverage. So how do they how just to kind of get back to the question again how are they able to provide a plan that is at no cost? Is that because those are very low um options for coverage? Are they not getting the same level of service? Is

069that how does how does that work? Well, it it it will depend on what the the coverage is. You know, for example, the the Broward County coverage that was or the Palm Beach County coverage that was mentioned is not really an applesto apples comparison to the school district because it's a very structured plan and you have to go to your primary care. you can't just go directly to a specialist. So, each of the plans are going to be different and how they operate. So, it is difficult to get apples to apples, but they're really using a lot of the dependent coverage to help subsidize um the the free option for employees in some cases. Okay. So the um I know Miss Bolton has has come up so she can answer my first question, but um

070just just to maybe if she could also speak to the proportional um share, do any other school districts do um do plans like that where they're changing the proportional share depending on the level of income? And the first question I had was about um participation in the employee groups. In regards to that question related to the uh whether it's tiered based on salary, there's only one school district that we're aware of in the state of Florida that does tier based on income. Who's that? Miami date county schools. Okay. Um and as far as the we do offer a waiver benefit. You can wave your insurance. will pay $100 a month um and put those dollars in a special retirement plan managed by Bankor and uh we don't have the breakout by every bargaining unit. We

071did look at SEIU for this purpose and determined about 78% of um SEIU members opt into the benefit or opt into the benefit with the balance wave waving it and um that is uh it compares to the general population with the general population a little over 80% opt in. Um, and you know, we did compare it to other school districts. Um, Hillsboro, for example, had very similar percentages. That's the data that we have available to share. Thank you very much. I'll save my other questions for later. Thank you. Thank you. And so before I I call on um Vice Chair Andrews, I will just say that, you know, I understand that the only issue that we are addressing is the amount of employee contribution to the premium costs. Um but the angst that I felt

072when I read through all the material um attorney Floyd actually hit on it and that's proportions. And so although we cannot discuss this now I think that the board may want to consider later on having a discussion and being a leader in the state looking at having a scale based on either the employees um what their category is or their income. But I find it increasingly um unfair for someone who makes $24,000 a year to pay the same thing for coverage that someone who makes $150,000. You know, if you apply for Medicare, they look at your income. If you apply for other things, they look at income. We can't discuss that here. Whatever the outcome is, but I want to just throw that out on the table for I know it would be an administrative

073nightmare, Mr. superintendent, but I do think it's something that, you know, perhaps we can become a leader in the state and in the country um because of the costs, but it because pro be being that proportions are not fair, it's something we should think about. Vice Chair Andrews, thank you. And when we think about the 6,700 employees who are at the lowest rate and do the great amount of work that take care of our students, I do appreciate them. But I think we're in a place now when we look at what's happening uh at the state level. Uh we're going to have a budget workshop shortly, but uh as we looked at the charts, we're in we're in a difficult time right now. And as I was looking through all of the paperwork, what bothered

074me the most is the meto uh uh clause that if we went this route with SEIU, I'm just worried that we won't be able to do the things that we need to do as it relates to children uh in schools and in the classroom because it's already in play. And then when you talked a little bit about it today, we were talking about 20 almost 22 million more. So that's a big deal to me. I worry, you know, and I do know that uh I like what you're saying uh Mrs. Bril to be a leader in the state, but we are where we are right now with money. And um I think as I look at all of this uh for so long we did the best that we could as a district try trying

075to make sure that we took care of all of our employees, the 6,700 of the lowest paid as well as the teachers, the police officers, and everybody else. But we're in a different place now. This is why I was hoping we would never get here today, but we're here today and it's truly all about the money. That's why I would like for u our finance leader to go back to that page where we talked about how much it's going to cost us if we move toward u something different. Uh and I saw it up there, but could you re reiterate that to me again? How much it's going to cost us? Right. the revenue uh the premium revenue would be short $22 million by plan year 27 and there would be a $36 million shortfall

076from the ending the required ending surplus um compared to what the the minimum is. So we would be short $36 million in our ending surplus and we would be short $22 million in recurring uh premium increases. Thank you. Okay. And so before I go on to Mrs. Whitfield, just to clarify for Vice Chair Andrews, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I'm not saying that we should do anything now. What I was saying is going forward for future negotiations. We might want to look at a different model so that maybe we can do proportions and become a leader in the state. But yes, indeed, we do have to look at what our finances are. What I'm saying is no, not change the dollar amount. take that pot and figure out a way to proportionally

077and equitably share it amongst our employees. Mrs. Whitfield, thank you. Um, and so I just want to make a couple comments, but I also have another question. Um, so this has been a really interesting um, conversation specifically around the struggles that we're having in this community for how expensive it is to live here. It's insane. Things are getting worse every and I completely understand the difficulty that that we're going through. Um, I have worked in the past in our school food service department within this building here. Um, and I did work um, with our risk and benefits people um, in the past and we talked a lot about um, the employee groups that have the highest health inequities. And so you're seeing the people who have the highest level of diabetes and high blood pressure

078and um, things that really need everyday care. And that is coming from our SEIU group. And so that really concerns me um that they may not be accessing care um because you know everybody has things going on with them but the going to the doctor is really the most important thing so that you can get on the right medication and stay there. So, that's something that um I think is is really important to think about as we're having these conversations and then when we decide whether or not we're taking our child to a doctor or taking ourselves to a doctor um based on how much it's going to cost us in the end. Um you know, that that worries me a lot. So, I just want to put that out there. Um I have a

079question about the MeToo clause. If we were to um only make a deal with SEIU for one year, would that enact the me too clause as well or is there a way that we could have this conversation over a longer period of time where we could talk about what Miss BR is saying about the proportional share? Um is that something that we could do in a year for the next if they were only to have a one-year contract and everybody else had the three-year contract, we could then work out the details? That would not be the outcome. No. No. So there's nothing we can do in this situation today that keeps everything status quo um for the other groups and allows us to then discuss this in future for SEIU. If I'm understanding your question,

080Miss Whitfield, you asked that there's nothing that we can do. But when Miss Brought up the idea of proportional share and us discussing that at a future date, right now my understanding is with this contract, we are locked in for three years. We have a three-year deal, but we are continuing to negotiate during those three years to make for next year, could we discuss proportional share or because we're locked in for three years, we don't have this discussion. We can have the discussion and we can negotiate it. We can always negotiate something different, but we do have a three-year contract. we've agreed to continue negotiating even during these three years. That would be something again that would have to be negotiated. Okay. So, well then I'll say um for this discussion today um and what

081we're what we are saying I agree with Miss Andrews that we are having a really difficult time with our budget. I know the conversation with our budget is going to be pretty traumatic um coming forward in this next couple of you know months when we see what the legislature is going to be handing down to us. So my personal opinion and I want to hear from the rest of my board members is that we need to hold strong on this plan for today. But I do want us to have a conversation talking about respecting um you know the the low level of of funding that we are giving to our lowest level employees in our district that provide such vital functions um to make sure that they do have the ability to access health care.

082It's something that um you know I'm it concerns me a lot um and we brought talked about this during our our internal sessions as well. Um so I would say that you know my goal for today would be to you know continue with the plan as it's going but I would really like to have these conversations in the next few months um for how we can work with our employees going forward at SEIU. Thank you. So before I call on Vice Chair Andrews, just again to clarify, when I say proportional share, it's not changing the dollar amounts. It's taking that pot of money that whatever we decide today is the pot of money going forward for the three years. Not changing the pot of money, but rather how the pot of money money is divided.

083So there won't be a different financial impact to the district except for the administrative hours, which would come into play in a big way. Um, it would be painful for the first year, but it's taking that same pot of money. It's not renegotiating the increases. Vice Chair Andrews, thank you. And Chair Burl, I did understand that, but I want to take it a bit further and maybe risk management can help us out. Uh, and I don't know how many of our uh, 6,700 employees participate in our wellness programs that really allow them to kind of have less of a payment because we really don't want to stress them out any further than we can. And can you talk about the different uh, plans that we have that can help them reduce that? I didn't hear

084SEIU talk about that. So, can you go into a bit more detail as to how we can help lower that? Yes. So we do have our health reward program that is um you know meeting three out of five health markers, blood pressure, cholesterol, obesity, those you know those basics that we all track every year and um participation full participation in that program attending biometric screenings uh working to improve health uh can result in um reduction in premiums. uh $50 per month for full participation. If everything is complete, you go to see your doctor, everything is complete by August 31st. Uh if everything is complete by December 31st, uh that's partial participation. And that's a $25 monthly um uh discount the the following year. And about 10 per uh what 10,000 of our employees either fully

085or partially participated last year. and are enjoying that discount this year. Um, but we always do want to partner with the unions to increase that participation. Miss Savayto, thank you. I have a few questions. Um, how do we come up with the numbers 36 3612 or 18186? Why is it like the largest numbers the first two years? and you know the smallest number the third year instead of maybe the lower number the first year to um make it easier on people because originally we were going the plan was due to be at a $50 million shortfall uh by the end of 2025 and we wanted to phase in uh the premium increase instead of and put that all increase that premium all in one So that's why it's we need the higher amount in those

086first two years in order to u make up that short that larger shortfall within the within the health fund. So initially we were when we started negotiations we were only negotiating for one year and we were looking to have a $64 increase in the health premium for each of the employees. that it would be $64 for the district, $64 for the employee so that we could make up that shortfall within the health plan in the first year. Um, so we went through negotiations with the coalition bargaining group and we moved down from that $64 on the employee side and then we phased it in over a three-year period. Um, and then the district is actually absorbing the majority. So instead of splitting it 50/50, uh the district is actually funding 80% of it of the

087investment over the next three years, when you consider the a $30 million one-time funds in addition to the higher premiums that the district is paying each paycheck as well. Thank you. Um can I answer that question from our perspective? Uh so how we came up with the 18186? It wasn't just that it's half of the district's proposed increase. I mean it that does work out nice, but really what we were looking at is that proportional sacrifice. And if you look at the wage comparisons, the impact on your general employees, it preserves that 4% increase. Our net is still less than the other bargaining units, but not by much and by a tolerable amount. So, it was convenient that it was half of the districts. We thought it struck a nice balance with the preservation of

088those wage increases and your to your comment regarding why not lower in the first year, higher in the third year. I just want to note which was explained to you before that you are free to resolve this matter however you see fit. You could rearrange those numbers and you could move the lower number up front and put the higher numbers in the back. And with regard to your me too clause, the same would apply to the other bargaining units because they chose to hamstring us and have you come here today and say, "Sorry, SEIU, we can't do it for you because we'd have to pay for it for them." I don't know why we are here bargaining on behalf of the PBA and the CTA. It's a shame, but we are, I guess, apparently. But

089you have that ability. You could reverse that. And under the Me Too clause, it would reverse for them, too. Thank you. I um I also wanted to know about the meto clause. Who negotiated the clause? Where did the clause come from? And is it state level? Is it us, the school district? It was negotiated through the parties and the board approved it and the union when it when was this approved? I think two board meetings two months ago to have a meto clause like it didn't exist before. It it did not exist. the the other unions did insist on having that in there in order for us to reach an agreement that we could bring forward and try to settle some of these healthcare increases. And nobody brought that question that it didn't look fair

090or even. I mean, I don't know. But keep in mind we we've bargained health care for as long as I know as a coalition and all the rates were the same for all all employees and that was our approach for this. Madam Chair, may I also clarify? Madam Chair, may I speak? We did not separate the groups. When we filed impass, we asked to have one a we filed impass against the coalition. It was Perk that broke the groups out and had us negotiate separately. So, it wasn't like we went behind SEIU's back and negotiated something secretly with CTA and with PBA. So, I just want to make sure that I would understand that yet. So, um I think Miss Madam Chair, can we address that? Uh sure. That's incorrect. There was a direct conversation

091with the district and the teachers. They came to an agreement. We were called at 4 p.m. on a Friday and said, "Take it or leave it." That instance stepped outside of the context of negotiation. And that put us in a position where we either had to take it or leave it and it put the onus on us. Thank you. Um, the district was not involved in that. That was a union coalition decision. That was the district had nothing to do with that. Yeah. Very unclear. Respectfully, that's incorrect. So, we need to bring this back to the board. Miss Savetto, did you have any other question? Yes. Um, so I had another question. I think it was um Miss Whitfield, maybe Miss Frederick, you answered to her. I I had asked I I had written in

092my notes if there were any units bargaining units anywhere that were um anywhere that assigned different premium rates to their respect uh respective bargaining units based on their salary of their members. And you said something about Miami Dade. The only school district that I'm aware of that does that is Miami Dade schools. Okay. So it's being done. So that's good. That doesn't mean we I mean we could look at what they are doing so we don't have to do well it's just based on salary range their salary bands. Okay. And uh the Palm Beach County um comparison um I come from Palm Beach County so and I always thought that the school district would have been a better deal because we have 23,000 employees and the county has only 7,000 employees. How how is that

093possible that um the county beats us by half? two two different reasons for that. The county is able to set their own millage rate. So, their funding is higher on an annual basis than the school district. Our funding is set by the state legislature and does not follow um the increase in property values, but the county does. And so, the 7,000 employees at 23, that would be like three times as more employees. So, wouldn't we collect more money? But it's also aligned with the claims within the plan. And then in addition, their plan is a different plan. So they have a better plan in at the county. So that's even more expensive. No, no, it actually it it is different in the sense that the it's more structured and requires you, from my understanding, to

094go to a primary care physician before you are allowed to go to a specialist. Our plan allows that flexibility for employees to be able to go to different specialist doctors without going through their primary care physician. So there are some differences within the plan as well. Okay. Thank you. The county plan is more expensive than what we are able to provide though as well. I know Miss Bolton's got some experience there. And the 23,000 more members means we've also got 23,000 more people to serve and pay their claims. Um, and the county enjoys much more independence as Miss Frederick said in setting their tax rate. So when they maintain their millage rate or reduce it just slightly and property values have gone up 15 10% they enjoy much more revenue to work with. Uh, but

095Miss Bolton, you've got some history there. Can you help us out? I do. And uh, my history is three years removed. I don't know under the new United contract how it looks, but the county's uh, rates are actually higher. the premiums are higher, but the county subsidize more of that premium. So, when a county employee retires, there's always sticker shock because those generous benefits are very pricey. Um, ours are less as a whole as a uh premium hole, but but this we don't have the same financial capability to subsidize. I think 95% something like that the county subsidizes. Thank you. Um, general counsel. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to remind council and of course parties and those who are gathered here today to just make sure that you're getting your cues from

096the chair before speaking over each other. Certainly, we want to maintain decorum today. So, please make sure before you speak out that you get your cues from the chair and then the chair can direct the the comments from there. Thank you, Vice Chair Andrews. Thank you. I have two questions. Uh, one, with the 10,000 employees in the wellness program, I would like to see that number broken out by uh, how many do we have uh, from this group of 6,700? And one thing that I would like to see happen is that we do a better marketing of that. I don't know what the numbers look like. Maybe most of them are in this in in this 10,000 number, but if I could see the numbers, it would help me to know that we may need

097to do a better job in marketing so that we can actually uh lower the uh the payments for um uh our employees that we really care so much about. And the other thing I'd like for uh Miss Frederick's to pull that uh chart back up again because I know that there's some of those the urban seven is how we compare ourselves and I just know everything's happening based on the postcoid you know we're down a thousand members claims are increasing and we've just done the best that we could to make sure that we took care of people's health insurance within the school district of Palm Beach County. But I just would like for us for the public and everybody else to kind of look at what we do in comparison to the other urbans and

098even though some may have that clause where there's a lower level uh area where nobody may be paying anything, we have to look at the big picture of what ours look like in comparison to those other urbans. I think you pulled it up there and I think that's very critical as to how we've lived our lives here in Palm Beach County, trying to to take care of all of our employees, especially the ones uh in SEIU, which means so much to us. Can you pull that screen up? Yeah. Vice Chair Andrews, I just want to remind you we have four more minutes, so we'll let everybody look at that quickly. Um, can I just move on to Miss Woodfield? Miss Whitfield. Um, I don't I definitely don't want to take too much time, but I

099just wanted to just recognize I think sometimes in these conversations we don't thank our staff enough. I know you guys have done really a heroic job over the years and really keeping the increases of financial um impact of health care um stable and not increasing them for as many years as we have um has been really impressive and I just want to say thank you um in that work that you've done. it. I know it often doesn't go acknowledged and as we're in this time of financial kind of struggle within our community, it's hard to remember that this is something that has been very impressive in Palm Beach County for many years and I just want to say thank you and acknowledge that in this time. Thanks. So before I move this over to general

100counsel, since you've thanked staff, I will like to thank the SEIU for your advocacy on behalf of the union members, our employees who really are also the backbones of our of our district. So I am now going to turn the meeting back over to general counsel who will now explain the voting to all of us. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So as for the voting aspect of the proceedings which is where we've now moved into uh there must be a vote. The vote will be recorded. Uh when voting the board chairperson will ask if there is a motion to either grant or deny the proposed recommendation for res resolution of either party. A board member will then move to either grant or deny the proposed recommendation for resolution for either party to

101move to grant an or excuse me either party can move um to grant an alternative resolution. So you as board members can come up and it's been said here many times that you can come up with your uh an alternative resolution. Uh there must be a second to the motion. The board must consider with particularity its public interests reasons for granting or denying the proposed recommendations or coming up with an alternative. Following the impass hearing, a written agreement shall be drafted by the superintendent and the union which incorporates the parties identified disputed issues, the board's vote, and the board's resolution of the disputed impass issue at the impass hearing. The agreement shall be signed by the superintendent and the union and submitted to the agency, the school board and its employees for ratification. If after

102the impass hearing, the agreement is not rat not ratified by all the parties, the school board's resolution of disputed impass issues shall take effect as of April 2nd for the remainder of the calendar year. Um, and I will now turn the meeting uh back over to the chair. Thank you. Um, Mrs. Whitfield, I see that you pressed your to speak, but uh if you're wanting to make a motion, I will ask you to please wait for a moment. Thank you. So, the board must now rule on the issue as presented. So, just to recap, the issue is what is the amount that the SEIU employees contribute to premium healthc care benefits? So, now do we have a motion to accept, reject, or amend either parties proposed recommendation for impass resolution? Mrs. Whitfield. Thank you. I'd

103like to move that the board grant the superintendent's recommendation as to the benefit premium amounts to be paid by each SEIU employee participating in one of the school districts health insurance plans for the years 2025 to 27 as based on the board's review of the party's submissions position set forth and articulated by council at today's hearing and considering the public interest. We have a motion by Mrs. Whitfield, second by Vice Chair Andrews. Any discussion? Okay, seeing no discussion. Um, all in favor, raise your hands high so I can see all of you. Okay, all opposed. Mo, okay, we have um my math is off. Sorry. Six in favor. Um, and one opposed, Miss with Miss Savetto voting in opposition. Is that correct? Well, five because yes, Mr. Sorry, it's been a long day. So we

104have five in favor. Miss Savetto voting in opposition. Okay. Um so now that concludes the impass hearing today. Do we have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Motion by Miss Branch, second by Mr. Lane. Any discussion? Oops. We have our clerk. I believe you have to do a motion to approve the superintendent signing the agreement. The superintendent's what? The signing. The sign. Oh, okay. Well, that's not here. So, we'll need a motion now to have to approve the superintendent signing of the agreement. Motion by Miss Branch, second by Vice Chair Andrews. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. I'll now take a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion by Mr. Lane, second by Miss Branch. Any discussion? All in favor? All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. The board is now going

105to exit the boardroom to attend the closed door risk management session. And this session is anticipated to last approximately 30 minutes. When you come back to the boardroom, there'll be a change in our setup once again. Thank you.