WALLACE — Faced with a 12% increase in employee health insurance costs, Shoshone County officials are exploring changes to benefits, bonuses and wages as they work to finalize the county's budget for the coming year. 

The increase would add nearly $270,000 to the county's insurance costs at a time when officials are also weighing employee pay adjustments after a recent wage study found many county positions fall below industry standards.  

During a Thursday discussion, commissioners and County Clerk Lori Osterberg floated several potential solutions, including sharing insurance costs with employees, offering bonuses in lieu of insurance coverage and providing a 2% cost-of-living adjustment. 

Idaho counties are not mandated to provide medical insurance, according to Idaho code. However, county commissioners are granted broad authority over personnel matters, including setting compensation and benefits. 

Nothing was decided during Thursday's meeting, which was treated more as a brainstorming session between the commissioners and Osterberg. 

Currently, the county's monthly cost for insurance is $758.18 for a single employee, $1,413.61 for an employee and spouse, and $1,902.64 for family coverage. All of those figures will increase by 12% in the coming year. 

Commissioner Dave Dose suggested allowing employees to decline insurance coverage and instead receive a monthly payment structured like a bonus. 

"We need some ways to save money or make money," Dose said. "This isn't the first time this idea has come up. I think we should seriously consider it." 

Dose said the last time the idea was suggested, projected savings to the county exceeded $100,000, a figure he expects could be even higher now. 

"It works for both groups of employees," he said. "We seem to have those two camps; the ones who want their benefits and the ones who would rather have more cash to pay their bills." 

Osterberg said the county could save $1.9 million by offering insurance only to individual employees and eliminating spouse and family coverage options. Currently, 78 of the county's 121 insured employees are enrolled in a plan other than single coverage. 

She also similarly suggested redistributing some of those savings to employees in the form of monthly bonuses. 

Osterberg said bonuses would be preferable to wage increases because county revenues and funding models have fluctuated significantly in recent years. As a result, the county could not commit to permanent wage increases that may become unsustainable in the future. 

Another concern related to the increase in insurance costs is the county's recently completed wage study, which found many departments were paid below industry standards for counties and municipalities of similar size. Bringing those wages into alignment would require roughly $42,000 in additional funding. 

Dose also noted the county has not provided cost-of-living adjustments, commonly called COLAs, to employees during the past four years. As a result, bringing wages up to industry standards would only offer temporary relief before employees again fell behind. 

One idea that appeared to have considerable support among the commissioners and Osterberg was bringing wages up to the levels identified in the wage study, providing employees with a 2% COLA and splitting the 12% insurance increase evenly between the county and employees. 

A 2% COLA would cost the county about $120,000. 

Each of the proposed solutions follows Dose's original line of thinking: the county must find creative ways to save money before reallocating it elsewhere. 

"That's the big question; can we afford it?" Commissioner Melissa Cowles said. 

Shoshone County Prosecuting Attorney Ben Allen also attended the meeting and said the commissioners' decision could influence the type of employees the county attracts and retains in the future. 

He noted that Dose's suggestion may best serve the county because it allows employees to choose how their compensation is structured. 

"Something like a bifurcated system may give you two routes to appease two different types of applicants," Allen said. "I think if you shift to a system, universally within the county, where you're greatly reducing the benefits for families with children or other dependents, you're going to incentivize employees that don't fit that criteria." 

The commissioners acknowledged that many of the ideas remain preliminary. Before moving forward, they said they will need to consult with their insurance provider, survey employees and further review wage scales and budget figures. 

"We've got to figure out if this is even possible," Commissioner Jeff Zimmerman said. 

The county plans to evaluate all available options and have a solution in place before the budget is finalized in early September.