Leetsdale Borough employees might pay part of health care costs
Leetsdale Council members soon could require its employees to pay into health care costs.
Council members next month are expected to continue discussing a plan that could charge some employees $25 per pay for use of a family premium health insurance plan, President Joe McGurk said.
Employees under the single-user plan would pay nothing.
“The people who work for the borough who have family members on our plan or a spouse on our plan, the premiums to pay for them are much more significant than the premiums we pay for single people,” McGurk said.
Three of the borough's five non-uniform employees — which include office staff and public works — would be affected.
“We're trying to make it so the single person, who's way, way, way less expensive for coverage doesn't pay anything, and as a nominal token — it really is a token compared to what the family premium would be — (employees with families) would pay $25 per pay,” council member Linda Michael said.
Under a contract agreement last year, police officers contribute $25 per pay for health care costs.
Under the borough's previous health care plan with Highmark, non-uniform employee premiums ranged from about $340 for single users to more than $1,000 for families, borough secretary Liz Petalino said.
Petalino did not have coverage costs for the borough's new HealthAmerica insurance plan.
Borough solicitor Kate Diersen said she would know next month whether the borough could offer a tiered plan.
Bobby Cherry is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Bobby Cherry to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Departing Sewickley couple wants to leave seeds of hope behind
- Hoeys Run project holding up Sewickley theater project
- Koch: Age gracefully? Nope — gonna fight it every step of the way
- Quaker Valley board aims to clarify policies on communication, who can drive students
- Howard Hanna to raze damaged Sewickley office building, rebuild
- Halloween activities scheduled around the Sewickley Valley
- Life Unleashed: We’ve got to let our dogs be dogs
- Future of former St. James Convent remains unclear