Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sturgeon Bay board hears options as member districts leave NEW Health Consortium; 6% renewal 'back on the table'
Summary
Board members discussed whether to withdraw from the NEW Health Consortium after two districts signaled withdrawal; staff said a 6% renewal from the current provider is again an option but alternative carriers quoted higher increases and trade-offs over network breadth and consortium membership remain.
The Sturgeon Bay School District Board of Education discussed on March 18 whether the district should withdraw from the NEW Health Consortium after nearby members submitted formal notices to leave.
Board staff told trustees that two member districts — Gibraltar and Southern Door — had indicated they would leave, which would leave Sturgeon Bay and Sevastapole as the remaining consortium members. Dan (district staff) told the board the district received multiple updated bids and broker advice and that, "we did get information from M3 today that the 6% is back on the table," referring to the current provider's renewal offer.
Why it matters: Health insurance renewal decisions affect staff take-home pay, benefits continuity and the district budget. Board members heard competing options: keep the current plan with PA 360 at 6%, seek a broader-network plan that could increase costs in the 8–10% range, or pursue longer-term structural options such as self-funding or joining a different consortium.
What trustees heard and debated: Staff said staying with PA 360 at a 6% increase would preserve the plan familiar to employees and would be workable if the district remains in a consortium arrangement with at least one other member; a broader-network option could mitigate some provider restrictions but likely cost more. Jake (district staff) said choosing a higher-cost, broader-network option could open the door to rejoining or joining other county consortia, but it would still require negotiation and teacher-staff consultation.
Board members pressed for practical details and next steps. Questions included whether a new plan would preserve access to local health providers (including the regional hospital), how broker fees and commission structures function, and whether board approval would be needed for quick broker engagement. Trustees discussed the timing: while a technical consortium deadline loomed, staff said practical coordination with Sevastapole and additional broker presentations scheduled the following week meant the board could delay final action until they had all proposals.
Outcome and next steps: Trustees did not adopt a formal withdrawal motion at the March 18 meeting. Staff recommended continuing broker conversations, receiving final quotes at upcoming broker presentations, and returning to the board with options—potentially in a special meeting or at the April or May meeting—so trustees can make an informed decision with up-to-date pricing and network details.
Attributions: Direct attributions in this article come from district staff present at the meeting (Dan and Jake) and from roll-call and motions recorded in the meeting minutes. The full discussion and timing of broker proposals were reviewed collectively by trustees and staff during the public portion of the meeting.
What to watch: The board expects final renewal numbers from the brokers and the consortium partners in the coming days; trustees signaled they may table any formal decision until they have that comparative information.
