Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richardson ISD weighs two compensation models for 2026''27; trustees lean to lower-cost option
Summary
Board members reviewed two raise frameworks and rising TRS ActiveCare insurance costs. Staff presented Option A (lower annual cost) and Option B (larger raises); trustees expressed concern about fund balance and favored Option A as a balanced approach ahead of budget adoption in June.
District leaders presented a multi-meeting compensation update and two proposed pay models for the 2026''27 school year at the May 7 board meeting, while noting health-insurance premiums are rising and long-term fund-balance pressure complicates choices.
Dr. Goodson and finance staff outlined two options for teacher and staff compensation. Option A would "bring the band back together" for teacher types (teachers, librarians, counselors, nurses) and, for those with satisfactory evaluations, provide $1,000 increases for employees with 1'10 years of service and $2,000 for those with 11+ years; the model would set the certified new-teacher starting salary at $63,500. Option B would increase those dollar amounts (roughly $1,500 for 1'10 and $3,000 for 11+), with a recommended starting certified salary of $64,000. Both options included a 2% increase for central/campus professionals and 3% for paraprofessionals and auxiliary staff.
Finance staff also highlighted projected health-insurance increases under the TRS ActiveCare HD plan: an employee-only premium increase of approximately $58 per month, a roughly 23% change that staff said is outside district control. They modeled district contribution scenarios (raising the district share would cost roughly $680,000 to $925,000 depending on the level chosen) and reminded trustees the district receives about $10,000,000 in teacher-retention allotment funding from the state that factors into revenue projections.
Trustees asked detailed questions about fund balance and competing obligations. Several trustees said they supported Option A as a more fiscally responsible approach that still addresses pay compression and supports veteran teachers; trustee Timmy explicitly called Option A "the most fiscally responsible" of the two because it saves approximately $2.5 million in the first year compared with Option B. Trustee Eager and others raised concerns about projected fund-balance declines and the longer-term compounding cost of higher-dollar raises.
Superintendent Branham asked for directional guidance so staff could communicate proposed structures to employees while noting any announcement would be "pending board approval" at the June budget-adoption meeting. The board did not adopt a final compensation plan at this meeting but expressed a consensus leaning toward Option A and directed staff to bring final budget actions for the June meeting.
Board members also discussed the district's permanent school fund (a local savings account) and the possibility of using a portion for near-term stabilization; trustees said tapping that fund would be considered carefully and is not automatic. Staff committed to continuing refinement of the multiyear forecast and to return with final recommended actions when the budget is presented in June.
No formal vote was taken on compensation options at the May 7 meeting.
