Dozens of teachers, parents and union representatives told the Ann Arbor Board of Education during public comment that proposed health insurance premium increases and years of frozen pay are driving educators out of the district.
"When I budget every single dollar I have about $30 left for emergencies," said Heidi Doherty, a third‑year middle‑school teacher at Tappan, who told trustees her take‑home pay is about $1,268 per paycheck and that a higher premium would push her into the negative. "Please consider giving teachers a raise and/or contributing more towards health care."
The union and many individual speakers cited the district's composite premium structure — in which single employees can pay the same composite rate as families — and described sharp increases proposed by carriers. The AAEA representative said renewals would raise out‑of‑pocket costs for teachers enrolled in the priority health HMO by $3,440 a year, bringing the HMO total to $10,308 annually; the priority PPO would rise by $4,661 to $9,237 and the Mesa plan by $5,203 to $19,674, according to the union presentation. Speakers said the result would be lost hires, resignations and heavier workloads for remaining staff.
"We are losing skilled, dedicated educators at an alarming rate," said one commenter, urging the board to adopt multi‑year cost‑of‑living increases and to bargain in good faith.
Superintendent staff and benefits staff presented the administration's timeline and response. The district said it learned of unusually large carrier increases in late September; the district then demanded to bargain, solicited alternative carriers and proposed six additional plan options on Oct. 16. The administration said some memoranda of agreement were reached with three bargaining units and that additional bargaining sessions with remaining unions were scheduled.
Miss Lankford, presenting the benefits update, told trustees the carrier increases were driven by unusually high claims and usage. She said the district's current contract language ties contribution increases to the state's hard cap (0.2% this year), which would have left staff bearing most of the carrier increases. She also warned that switching to an 80/20 employer/employee cost share, which some speakers urged under Public Act 152, would increase district costs by a minimum of about $6,000,000; she said failing to follow the selected contract approach could put the district out of compliance and expose it to a statutory penalty equating to roughly 10% of state aid (the presentation cited $16,500,000 as that approximate exposure).
Lankford said the district sought quotes from multiple carriers, negotiated with Priority Health to reopen terms, and proposed new plan designs that district materials show would lower out‑of‑pocket cost for some employees compared with the renewals. She said open enrollment is scheduled for Nov. 22–Dec. 6 and that the district will hold information sessions and create a healthcare advisory committee with union representation to seek longer‑term stability.
Trustees asked clarifying questions about why the district previously used composite rates rather than tiered single/2‑person/family tiers and whether the district had shopped carriers. Lankford said some alternatives were pursued but that carriers either declined to quote or quoted unfavorable rates given the district's claims history; she emphasized that benefit designs and contribution models must be negotiated with unions.
The board did not take an immediate vote on benefit policy at the meeting; trustees heard public comment and an administrative update and then proceeded to other business. The superintendent and bargaining teams said they will continue negotiations and informational outreach during open enrollment.
The next formal steps the district announced are additional bargaining sessions with teacher and remaining union groups and informational sessions about the proposed plan options; open enrollment begins Nov. 22.