Teacher negotiators press for multi-year pay package; district rejects opening offer

Negotiators for the Wilson Education Association presented a two-year economic package to the Wilson Basin School District No. 7 negotiations committee on April 29, proposing a 6% movement across salary columns in year one (with existing steps folded into that figure) and a year-two package that would include a 2% base increase plus a 3% column move.

The association’s negotiator said the year-one package would amount to roughly a 2.8% increase to the district’s overall payroll and gave preliminary dollar estimates around $1.1 million for the first year; a corrected spreadsheet discussed during the meeting revised some year-two numbers. “That’s what we’re looking at for year one…we’re looking at roughly 2.8%,” the negotiator said, explaining that the step increases were already factored into the percent movement.

District negotiators pushed back on the scale of the opening request and on its underlying assumptions. The district cited recent Consumer Price Index readings and county adjustments — noting 2024 inflation at about 2.9% and three months of 2025 readings between about 2.4% and 3.0% — and said those figures informed its view that a lower inflation adjustment was more defensible than the 6% range the association referenced.

The district offered a counter-framework that would keep the contracted school year at 186 days, propose a 0.5% base increase plus targeted $500 step payments to certain salary cells in year one, and targeted $500 step payments in year two without a base increase. The district asked the association to provide the precise salary base used for the association’s cost calculations; the association confirmed a previously granted $3,000 one-time payment was not included in the proposed schedule because that payment was a one-time item rather than recurring schedule money.

Costing was a key point of disagreement. The association said an ‘‘opening wage’’ analysis would cost about $1.7 million in year one and $2.4 million in year two; when adding optional items the association had left on the table (three contracted days, retention bonuses and certain stipends), the association said the package on the table would reach about $2.73 million in year one and $3.43 million in year two. The district said it would reject the opening numbers and had no immediate counter offer, saying it needed time to verify base totals and other cost drivers.

Members also debated whether reducing contracted professional-development days from 186 to 183 should be assigned a direct dollar value. The association described the change as partly perceptual and related to staff well-being, arguing that returning days to staff could have benefits beyond strictly hourly calculations. The district said quantifying those changes as a line-item cost was imprecise and requested further analysis and comps from neighboring districts.

Both sides agreed to continue bargaining. They discussed scheduling additional sessions for the following week (possible Tuesday and Wednesday) and flagged a desire to conclude negotiations by May 13. The committee asked the district to provide enrollment projections and precise salary-base figures to support further costing work.

The meeting closed with the district formally rejecting the association’s opening package and both parties committing to produce revised economic proposals at the next bargaining session.