Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears midyear pay‑scale proposal to realign steps, manager says it would average $2,591 raise
Summary
Staff proposed a midyear TTT pay‑scale adjustment to standardize step increments to 1.5%, narrow compression in later steps and align more closely with neighboring divisions; projected fiscal impact and state funding implications were presented.
Miss McDonough (staff member presenting compensation analysis) told the board the division is proposing a midyear adjustment to the teacher pay scale that would standardize step increases to roughly 1.5 percent between steps. The presenter said the change would correct long‑standing compression in later steps where small salary differences have accumulated over years of frozen steps and uneven adjustments.
Staff reported the average increase across employees would be about $2,591, with some individual increases ranging from a few hundred dollars to several thousand depending on step and years of service. The midyear (March) implementation cost for the remainder of fiscal year 2025 was estimated at $430,315; the full‑year cost to FY26 was estimated at $8,860,630 (both figures include estimated benefits). Staff said these estimates assume the budgeted average daily membership the division used in FY25 and that increased ADM reported through December will result in higher state revenue when March reporting is finalized.
The presenter compared the current Winchester scale with neighboring Frederick County and showed a large divergence in the later steps where Frederick County’s recent actions — including a late‑career stipend for teachers at high steps — have left Winchester less competitive. Staff recommended adopting the structural scale change to improve predictability and competitiveness and to meet the state requirement for a minimum two‑year 6% increase (the presenter said the midyear adjustment would bring Winchester into compliance over the biennium). Board members asked about funding sources and timing; staff said the midyear implementation aligns with the division’s expectation of increased state funding after March ADM reporting and that the costs are included in the budget projections the division is preparing.
No formal board vote on the midyear pay proposal occurred during this session; presenters said the item will be part of the budget process and brought back for action in the appropriate calendar/budget steps.
