Kootenai County tentatively budgets steeper employee contributions, selects Option Three to narrow FY27 gap

Brandy Falcon, the county budget presenter, told the Board of Commissioners on June 17 that Kootenai County faces a sizable FY27 shortfall under several rate scenarios: at a 3% tax increase the county would still face a $4.78 million deficit, at 2% a $5.4 million deficit, at 1% $6.1 million, and at 0% roughly $6.77 million. To narrow that gap, Falcon presented three health insurance options and recommended budgeting under the most aggressive scenario for now.

Falcon said Option Three would raise employee contribution percentages and include modest plan design changes — for example a deductible increase from $600 to $750 and a $150 specialty prescription co-pay — and estimated that combination would save the county about $737,000 in FY27. "Option three, right now based on the percentage increases... would save the county $737,000," Falcon said. The presenter also noted Option Two (holding the employee percent constant) would save about $321,000.

The recommendation prompted commissioners to press for benchmarking and outcome data. Commissioner Duncan asked whether the county's proposed percentages were consistent with comparable agencies; Falcon said Alliance's benchmarking data is limited by confidentiality but that HR could supply utilization and comparative information. Commissioners also pressed for evidence about the county's on-site primary medical resource (PMR) clinic: commissioners asked HR to provide utilization and savings metrics and for the county's earlier estimates that the clinic would produce multi-year savings.

After discussion the board directed staff to budget using Option Three for now but left open the option to revert to a less aggressive approach if further benchmarking or utilization data warrant a change. "Option three it is," Commissioner Matari said during the deliberation. Commissioners asked staff to return with more detailed comparisons on employer contributions, clinic utilization, and a clearer accounting of how the chosen option affects employees at each coverage tier.

The next procedural step is for HR and budget staff to provide the requested benchmarking and PMR utilization data and for the board to revisit the health-plan assumptions as part of the upcoming B-budget review.