Coffee County committee weighs 3% raise, flat-dollar alternative as budget shortfall looms

Members of the Coffee County Board of Education compensation committee discussed how to fund pay increases for teachers, administrators and classified staff, and recommended that staff present two options to the full board: a 3% across‑the‑board salary increase versus a flat‑dollar increase for all employees, while keeping the district—s existing pay scales for the upcoming budget year.

At their meeting the committee focused on how state and county funding interact with local budgeting choices and on the limited flexibility of some state aid. "So the TISA funding has to be used on existing educators," April Melton, business/finance staff, told the committee, adding that the TISA dollars cannot be used for new hires. Melton said the district has roughly $535,000 in restricted funds tied to existing certified educator raises and that additional raises would require county funding or use of fund balance.

The discussion centered on cost estimates the committee heard from staff. Committee member Scott Hansert summarized the arithmetic: raising certified teachers 3% would cost about $800,000; a 3% increase for administrators was estimated near $100,000, and classified staff 3% about $200,000 — a rough total near $1.1 million before factoring existing TISA dollars. "We've got our custodians ... making $14 an hour," Hansert said, framing the committee—s stated goal of narrowing gaps at the low end of the pay scale.

Staff and committee members also discussed enrollment and funding volatility. Melton and other staff described TISA as enrollment‑sensitive: district allocations are averaged across nine reporting periods and can shift with daily enrollment changes. The district reported a drop of about 261 students in grades 6–12 since the start of the school year, which affects state funding calculations. Melton warned that, based on current preliminary numbers, "we're not gonna meet revenue, so we're gonna have to go into fund balance," a comment the committee took as a caution about relying on uncertain revenue increases.

Committee members raised alternatives. One proposal, favored by several members, was a flat-dollar increase paid to all employees (rather than a percentage) to blunt the proportional effect where higher earners receive larger dollar increases. Staff said a certified‑only flat payout equal to the available restricted money would be roughly $1,300 per certified employee using the committee—s headcount estimates; extending a flat amount to all district employees would substantially increase the cost and the benefit‑cost for the federal and grant budgets that already carry tightly constrained personnel lines.

Members also discussed the multi‑year objective adopted statewide to move entry‑level certified teacher pay closer to a $50,000 minimum. Several members stressed that meeting that $50,000 target will take multiple years and raised the possibility of phasing increases. "There is an alternative plan ... you take from the bottom, go to the top," Melton said of a possible staged approach, while cautioning that any change to how supplements and extra‑day pay are treated affects employee take‑home pay differently.

The compensation committee recommended that staff bring back a short menu of options to the full board for formal consideration: (1) a 3% across‑the‑board increase applied to the current pay scales; (2) a flat‑dollar increase scenario for all employees (certified and classified) and the comparable version limited to certified staff using only restricted TISA dollars; and (3) accompanying revenue scenarios showing the effect on county funding, federal/grant budgets (Title I, special education), and projected use of fund balance. The committee did not take a formal vote on policy changes at the meeting.

Next steps: staff will prepare those modeled options and the detailed budget worksheets for review by the board. Committee members also requested enrollment‑by‑grade withdrawal data to better estimate TISA sensitivity and asked staff to model the fiscal impact on federal grants and the general fund before a final recommendation.