Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Salary Compensation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers 3.5% annual pay increase proposal and salary-schedule changes
Summary
At a Jan. 26 Finance/Personnel Committee meeting, Tom Steger and Erin Gomanne presented a staff survey and a draft plan proposing 3.5% annual salary increases for five years and removal of step-language; members discussed retention, retirement stability, rotating priorities and reducing contracted days to raise per-diem pay.
Tom Steger and Erin Gomanne presented results of a staff survey at the Finance/Personnel Committee meeting of the Mineral Point Unified School District on Jan. 26, 2026, outlining a draft change to the district salary schedule. "The current thought was to provide a 3.5% increase for the next five years," the presenters told the committee as they explained the proposal and survey feedback.
Committee members said the plan aims to improve recruitment and retention and provide more predictable retirement-year pay by using fixed-rate increases rather than traditional steps. Members noted the district has not been able to fully fund salary priorities in three of the last five years, and discussed trade-offs if the board adopts a multi-year fixed increase instead of step-based progression.
Discussion identified several implementation options. One idea was to alternate funding "priorities" year to year so different priority areas receive full funding on a rotating basis; another was to reduce the number of contracted teacher days "to increase a teacher's per diem without increasing the salary." The committee did not adopt a recommendation; the staff survey will be shared electronically with the full board, and committee members requested additional follow-up analysis on budget impacts and distributional effects before any item is forwarded to the board.
No formal motion or vote occurred during the meeting on Jan. 26. The committee emphasized retaining flexibility: members repeatedly noted there may not be enough money to cover all priorities and requested scenario modeling showing how the 3.5% proposal would affect pay scales, retirement-year salaries, and differences between newer and veteran teachers.
