Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees weigh House Bill 2 pay mandates, district scenarios for support staff and teachers
Summary
Northside trustees spent the bulk of the meeting reviewing state pay allotments from House Bill 2, hearing public comments from hourly staff and union leaders, and asking staff to return with additional scenarios before a July finance meeting.
Board members devoted extensive time Tuesday to the new state school‑finance provisions in House Bill 2 and their local implications, including the Teacher Retention Allotment (TRA) and the Support Staff Retention Allotment (SSRA). Administrators presented the legislated funding, modeled multiple pay scenarios, and asked trustees for direction on next steps.
What the board heard: Finance staff described the TRA allotment as a legislated $2,500 raise for teachers with three to four years of experience and $5,000 for teachers with five or more years. Staff estimated the TRA cost to Northside at roughly $27.4 million; benefits (additional TRS contributions) would add approximately $3.0 million in district cost. The SSRA — a per‑student allotment the state calculated — produced a districtwide pool that, when translated to pay increases, equated to roughly a 1.28% general pay increase for eligible non‑administrative staff under the statute. Administrators modeled a 1.28% scenario, a 2% scenario, and more ambitious alternatives, including a $15 minimum wage for hourly employees.
Public comment and trustee reaction: Two patrons spoke during the business‑and‑finance portion. Occupational therapist Elizabeth Muchler said several campus programs (ECE/ECSE, ALE) lacked sufficient instructional‑assistant (IA) support and urged higher compensation to attract applicants. Northside AFT President Melina Espiritu urged the board to use House Bill 2 funding to raise hourly wages and called for a living wage for support staff, saying, "These workers are not temporary helpers. They're professionals who deserve respect and a living wage." Several trustees echoed concerns about IA shortages, maintenance vacancies and market competition for critical positions such as HVAC technicians and bus drivers.
Scenarios presented: Staff ran an initial 1.28% plan (the allotment calculation) and a 2% plan; they also ran a $3.50 per‑hour uplift to bring the district’s current $11.50 minimum toward $15. That $3.50 uplift produced a general‑fund cost estimate in the tens of millions (district staff cited approximately $23.8–$24.0 million for the full $3.50 uplift scenario), a figure trustees said would materially increase an already large projected deficit. Administrators warned that costs above the legislated allotments would increase the district’s structural deficit and could force program cuts or other difficult tradeoffs.
Board action and next steps: Trustees did not adopt a final compensation plan. Instead the board asked staff to compile more detailed scenarios and benchmarks (comparisons with peers, the number of part‑time employees, campus‑level vacancy reports, and targeted proposals for critical shortage roles). Trustees agreed to hold a finance committee meeting (a called meeting) at 6:00 p.m. on July 15 to review the additional analyses; if ready, the board expected to act at its July 22 regular meeting. Administrators also said they would return with clarifications on how federal grants, child‑nutrition funds and other non‑general funds interact with SSRA funding and with pay decisions.
Ending: The meeting left compensation unresolved but established an expedited process: trustees asked staff to email modeled scenarios and requested data to the board by the next week so the committee can consider policy and fiscal tradeoffs before the July board meeting.
