Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay school board discusses shifting district-paid income protection plan to employee-paid short-term disability
Summary
Board members and administrators debated a proposal to transition the district's district-funded Income Protection Plan (IPP) to a voluntary, employee-paid short-term disability plan administered through the district's long-term disability carrier; staff were asked to return with updated cost scenarios and shared-cost options.
Lynn Gerlach, vice president of the Green Bay Area Public School District Board of Education, opened the discussion on a staff recommendation to replace the district-paid Income Protection Plan with a voluntary, employee-paid short-term disability plan.
The proposal would end the district's long-standing IPP, which staff told the board has averaged about $720,000 in employer cost per year over recent years and paid 82.5% of eligible employees' income after sick leave is exhausted. Mike Fries, a district staff presenter on benefits, told the board a third-party administrator had agreed the proposal could drop its minimum participation assumption to 20% and raise the maximum weekly benefit from $1,000 to $1,500 "with no change in the rates for the employees," and he said he would update the memo with that late-afternoon information.
Why it matters: board members framed the item as an early step in responding to a projected $10 million to $12 million operational deficit for the 2025-26 school year and the expiration in 2026 of a $16 million operational referendum. Several board members warned that changing a longstanding employee benefit could create hardship for staff and risk morale.
Board debate and staff responses
Mike Fries summarized the existing IPP: a district-administered benefit that begins after five consecutive days of illness and pays 82.5% of contract days worked; he said the district paid roughly $601,000 in a low (COVID) year and as much as $877,000 in 2023-24. Fries said, "If the district does move to an employee paid, voluntary short term disability plan, it will be an individual decision for each employee who is eligible on whether or not to participate." He indicated staff estimate an October 1 transition, and that the district's long-term disability carrier, The Standard, was proposed to administer the short-term product.
Board members pressed a range of concerns: Andrew (board member) said he was reluctant to "touch" a negotiated benefit outside an emergency and worried about creating crises for employees. James (board president) said the main difference from last year is the proposed plan would be employee-paid and voluntary; he warned that when employees face multiple premium decisions at open enrollment they may decline voluntary coverage and thus be exposed. Jeanette (board member) asked about how common short-term disability is in peer districts; staff reported that in a review of statewide data (cited as a consortium effort ''CISA 5'') 77 districts reviewed indicated they offer short-term disability and that in the CESA 7 region only one district offers an employer-sponsored version. Vicky (staff) reminded the board that a prior option modeled last year showed about $174,891 in savings and suggested the board could consider cost-sharing models.
Board direction and next steps
No formal motion or vote was taken. Multiple board members asked staff to return with more modeling showing: (1) scenarios for shared employer/employee premium payments, (2) the effect of changing the payout percentage (for example from 82.5% to 70%) on district cost, and (3) projections that account for payments during noncontracted days if the district moves to a short-term disability product that covers summer days. Fries said he would provide an updated memo that reflects the administrator's later-day changes and additional scenarios for the board to consider.
