Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay Supplements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Orange County Schools staff ask county for funds to raise teacher and classified supplements; board seeks clarity on state funding assumptions
Summary
District leaders presented fiscal-year 2026 budget scenarios, outlined a continuation budget and recommended supplement increases for certified and classified staff; board members pressed for clarity on state funding assumptions and turnover impacts.
District leaders outlined preliminary FY 2026 budget scenarios and presented specific proposals to increase local pay supplements for certified (teachers) and classified staff.
Dr. Jones and finance staff said the continuation budget — the amount needed to maintain current services — depends on state actions, including the state-funded salary and benefit increases. The district shared three scenarios that assume salaries rising 2%, 3% or 4% and said most peer districts are using a 3% projection. Staff said last year’s county-approved allocation of $44.9 million covered mandated salary and benefit increases but did not fund expansion items the district had requested, such as step increases for classified staff and a higher teacher supplement.
Franklin Kowick and Rhonda Rath (finance and HR staff) presented modeled options for supplement increases. One model showed a 3% across-the-board local supplement for certified instructional staff would cost about $740,000. Staff also proposed raising classified local supplements for lower-paid employees: a 1-percentage-point supplement increase for roughly 280 classified staff would cost about $150,000; increasing from 7% to 9% would cost roughly $300,000. Staff said combined options (3% certified increase plus larger classified increases) would push the total additional cost into the mid-seven-figure range after employer retirement and benefit costs are included.
Board members emphasized competing priorities and uncertainty about state funding. Several members urged staff to prepare numbers that reflect both the district's ask to the county and fallback positions if the county cannot fund expansion items. Sarah Smiley and others suggested the district examine how neighboring districts structure supplements year-by-year and to consider targeted or differentiated supplements where retention pressure is highest (for example, special education or other high-turnover roles).
Staff also described the district's budget-tightening work after expiring federal ESSER funds: administrators reviewed line items and reallocated about $700,000 to preserve student-facing services. Board members asked for more detailed allotment and staffing data, and staff said they would return with a breakdown of allotments and an analysis of turnover and vacancy pressure by role.
No formal vote on the supplemental requests was taken; staff will finalize the county submission after board feedback and as state budget signals clarify salary and benefits. The district plans engagement with principals and departments to review allotments and staffing before the final budget is submitted to the county.
