Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Salaries Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
IBB agrees to 2.5% salary increase; members discuss fund-balance impact
Summary
On June 10 the IBB group agreed to recommend a 2.5% salary increase; members discussed budget effects, the district’s unrestricted fund balance and next steps for ratification and board action.
Moscow School District IBB participants on June 10 agreed to recommend a 2.5% salary increase and discussed the budgetary trade-offs and timing associated with that decision.
The group returned from a brief district caucus and announced: “we will go with the 2.5,” moving the recommendation forward to the ratification and board-approval steps. Participants asked for quick membership ratification so the district could place the item on the board agenda and finalize negotiated language for public distribution.
Why it matters: the difference between a 2.5% and a 2% increase was described during the meeting as “almost a $108,000” difference. Participants noted that the district’s annual budget is approximately $27 million and that one percentage point of the district’s unrestricted fund balance was discussed as roughly $66,000 under current conditions. Members emphasized that salary increases persist into future budgets because base pay rises are ongoing obligations.
Discussion and context: district financial staff explained how audits and budget revisions work: the annual audit reflects the original budget, and the district typically revises budgets in February after receiving updated state and federal information. One participant said the district has added to its fund balance for the last five years, and that historical underspending often increases the fund balance at audit time. Members also discussed that a roughly $100,000 difference could translate into classroom resources (one participant said a $100,000 equates to “a teacher” in simple terms).
Procedural steps: participants asked the MEA membership for a ratification vote and were advised to notify Sean and to seek completion before the next board meeting; specific dates were discussed for a board agenda and for a membership vote. One member asked for clarification about the district contribution for insurance premiums, noting the negotiated language referencing an increase that was described in the meeting as roughly $73 additional per covered unit; staff said they would verify the exact figure.
Outcome: the IBB group advanced a recommendation for a 2.5% salary increase. The recommendation still requires membership ratification and formal board action before it becomes district policy or payroll practice.
