Natomas Charter review of compensation study zeroes in on health benefits and budget trade-offs

The Natomas Charter School Board of Directors on a January 2025 meeting devoted more than an hour to a compensation study that showed substantial, multi‑year raises in teacher and classified pay but flagged sharply rising employee health‑insurance costs and the need for clearer options ahead of budget decisions.

The board heard that salary and benefits together account for roughly 75–85% of the district’s annual budget and that “salary and benefits represent 80% of our budget,” Executive Director Dr. Joe Wood said as he introduced the analysis. The presentation compared Natomas Charter to nearby districts and charter schools, showing the district lagged in some administrator and teacher salary bands while matching or exceeding peers in several classified categories.

The nut graph: the conversation centered on trade‑offs — whether new money should raise wages, expand employer‑paid health coverage, or both — and on practical fixes staff said would immediately improve employees’ experience, notably more timely open‑enrollment information and an independent broker to advocate for staff during renewals.

Board and staff said recent compensation work has raised wages markedly over the last five years. Wood and business‑office staff described cumulative increases since 2019 in starting, mid and top teacher steps of roughly 20–35% depending on the step, and said last year’s changes plus step increases contributed to a meaningful rise in average pay. Staff said those investments improved retention but that competition from local districts and non‑K‑12 jobs remains strong for hourly positions.

The most immediate pressure, staff told the board, is health care. Annual premiums and employee out‑of‑pocket costs have risen sharply since 2021; staff presented a calculation showing that returning to a model that fully covers the employer’s “low” plan for employees would cost about $361,000 a year. The packet also broke down the cost of pay increases: a 1% salary increase district‑wide equals about $210,000 (about $113,000 for certificated staff, $65,000 for hourly/classified staff and $33,000 for administrators).

Anita (staff member), who led the district’s health and welfare committee, described staff frustration with the timing and customer service of the current broker and carrier. “We formed a health and welfare committee,” she said, to vet options and to push for timely renewal information and better employee education on plan choices. The committee recommended selecting an independent broker to work for Natomas Charter specifically rather than rely on a large trust’s timetable.

Board members asked for concrete next steps. Staff said the governing team had already run a request‑for‑qualifications, vetted multiple brokers and recommended contracting with Alliant Insurance Services to provide dedicated broker services (a separate agenda item and vote covered that contract). Staff asked the board to expect option‑sets in March and a formal budget proposal by May and June: “we’ll bring back salary and benefits to you in probably March, to kind of look at some different potential scenarios,” Wood said.

Discussion points included: how to balance wage increases against growing medical premiums, whether to expand high‑deductible/HSA options, and long‑term retention strategies such as paid residency or student‑teaching pathways to help paraprofessionals and classified staff become certificated teachers. Staff described existing pathways (a Marshall residency partnership, a Sacramento County Office of Education residency and an internal paid‑student‑teaching pilot) used to promote internal advancement.

No formal compensation changes were adopted at the meeting. The board directed staff to return with: (1) broker‑sourced plan options and estimated premium impacts; (2) clearer counts of employees by coverage tier (employee only, employee +1, family) to aid modeling; and (3) salary scenarios tied to likely state funding scenarios. Staff also committed to educating employees about high‑deductible plan implications and potential HSA setups if those options are pursued.

The presentation also flagged calendar realities: K–12 employer health plans run on the calendar year while the charter budget follows the fiscal year, so staff said timing mismatches can leave employees with late open‑enrollment windows. The health and welfare committee and the recommended broker will try to ensure renewals arrive earlier in the fall so staff have adequate enrollment time.

Ending: Staff said they will return at the next budget milestones with quantified options and that the board will weigh any proposed salary increases against the district’s fiscal outlook before adoption.