Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge more equitable distribution of millage funds for support staff; union survey and MOU cited
Summary
Public commenters at the St. Johns County School Board meeting urged the board to revisit how millage funds and an MOU would be distributed to non‑instructional employees, arguing the current plan produces unequal percentage increases across different work schedules.
Several residents used the public‑comment period to urge the school board to reconsider proposed distribution of millage funds intended for support staff and to highlight concerns about teacher pay and salary compression.
Kate Dowdy, speaking from the auditorium, called attention to teacher pay in St. Johns County and contrasted district wealth with teacher compensation: "Our teachers are below average in pay in a state that is 50th in the nation for pay," she said. Dowdy asked the board to consider how employees will feel if the district hires a new superintendent at a markedly higher salary while many staff remain undercompensated.
Tracy Collins, a non‑instructional employee who provided calculations from the district’s MOU estimate, asked the board to revisit the distribution formula for millage supplements for non‑instructional staff. Citing the district’s estimate that approximately $13,742,444 in millage supplements would be divided among an estimated 2,249 non‑instructional employees for the 2025 school year, Collins said that figure would equal $6,102 per employee on average but that the distribution creates large percentage differences by work schedule. Collins walked through examples from the MOU as drafted in the district presentation: she said a five‑hour employee would see an increase that equates to roughly a 31.37% raise in the hourly rate under the proposal, while a 12‑month, eight‑hour employee would receive a lower percentage increase (which Collins described at approximately 13.27%). Collins said only 44 of roughly 2,038 non‑instructional staff responded to a union survey prior to the vote and urged the board to seek a more equitable distribution.
An online commenter (identified in the record as a parent and supporter of teachers) asked the board to prioritize salary compression fixes for experienced teachers rather than a flat minimum $5,000 supplement for everyone, urging the board to consider the union’s proposal and what teachers indicated they wanted.
Why it matters: commenters asked the board to revisit formulas that could produce unequal percentage increases among non‑instructional employees and to consider salary‑compression strategies for long‑tenured teachers. The remarks put public pressure on the board to ensure the millage‑fund distribution is perceived as fair across schedules and roles.
