Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MCALLEN ISD hears TASBY pay-study that would cost $2.9M–$6.2M under four models
Summary
Consultant Zachary Hobbs presented a market-based compensation review showing MCALLEN ISD teacher pay roughly 3% below local median and proposed structure changes plus four cost models (1%–3% raises) with estimated total impacts of about $2.9 million to $6.2 million; trustees pressed for staffing and funding details before selecting options.
A consultant from TASBY on Monday told the MCALLEN ISD board that district salaries generally trail the regional market and offered a set of structural changes and four cost models for next year’s budget.
Zachary Hobbs, who presented remotely, said the district’s teacher salary schedule is about 97% of the peer median — roughly $1,900 below peers at entry — and that several non-teaching pay groups (technology, instructional support, auxiliary, police) also trend below market midpoints. Hobbs said the study used 11 peer districts plus private-sector sources for occupations that compete outside schools.
Hobbs recommended three linked steps: (1) adjust pay structures to align midpoints with market, (2) adopt a general pay increase (he modeled 1%, 2%, 2.5% and 3%), and (3) apply targeted equity adjustments (a 1%‑above‑minimum floor for returning staff, a teacher‑career‑pathway adjustment to keep counselors and other educator‑career staff at least 1% above comparable teacher daily rates, and strategic lifts for exempt jobs more than 10% below midpoint).
The board was shown four cost scenarios. Under Hobbs’s assumptions (current staffing; preliminary property valuations not yet final), a 1% general-pay model produced an estimated $1.8 million in general increases and a total budget impact of about $2.9 million after structural adjustments. A 2% model rose to roughly $4.5 million total; 2.5% to about $5.3 million; and 3% to about $6.2 million. Hobbs noted approximately $227,000 of cost in the lower-cost model would be covered by the state teacher retention allotment created in House Bill 2.
Trustees asked whether the market comparisons included benefits and retirement; Hobbs said his analysis looked at base pay only and did not incorporate health or retirement benefits. Board members also pressed whether a flat-dollar increase for hourly employees (for example, $1/hour or a $15 minimum) had been modeled; staff said TASBY provided separate cost estimates and cautioned that flat-dollar increases can create compression and equity issues unless decompression adjustments are run afterward.
Budget staff and trustees noted all modeled options would likely require some use of fund balance under current projections; staff said preliminary property values are due April 25 and a full staffing review is underway to refine totals. Trustees repeatedly asked for clearer, itemized scenarios that show which funds (general fund vs. grants) would absorb portions of increases and for comparisons of staffing levels to peers before committing to ongoing salary increases.
The board did not take action; staff scheduled follow-up budget workshops (employee benefits scheduled April 7) to refine staffing assumptions, fund-by-fund impacts and potential phased approaches to reduce recurring cost pressure.
