MANCHESTER — Clay County Board of Education employees will receive a substantial 13% pay raise following a special-called meeting last week that featured a standing-room-only crowd, heated exchanges among board members and lengthy discussions about employee compensation.
The increase, approved by a 3-0 vote with two abstentions, is designed to help employees recover purchasing power lost to inflation over the past decade.
Board Chairman Mark Hoskins credited newly elected board member Robert Marcum with bringing attention to the difference between employee pay increases and the rising cost of living.
Marcum, who recently defeated incumbent Leewood Cornett in the District 3 school board election, attended the meeting along with fellow board member-elect Christy Kennedy Rice, who defeated incumbent Anthony Lovett in District 1. Neither has officially taken office.
Although Clay County school employees have received raises totaling 25.5% over the past 10 years, those increases have not kept pace with inflation.
"You have to give credit where credit is due," Hoskins said, acknowledging Marcum's role in raising the issue.
Board members Lovett, Cornett and Hoskins voted in favor of the increase, while Roy Glenn Allen and Robin Combs abstained.
Lovett said the decision builds on the board's longstanding efforts to improve employee compensation.
"Over the past 10 years, we have averaged a 2.6% raise each year," Lovett said. "We approved different amounts, but it equates to 2.6%. This 13% raise is the same thing, 2.6% per year over five years, but we have given it to them in the lump sum to meet the inflation."
The 13% increase is equivalent to five years of 2.6% raises using simple addition. However, rather than waiting five years to receive those increases, employees will receive the full raise immediately.
That distinction is important because the new increase is calculated on employees' current salaries, which already reflect raises received during the previous decade.
Kristi Curry, the district's finance director, told board members the increase will cost approximately $2.8 million annually.
Curry said the district can sustain the additional expense for five years under its current financial management structure, without raising property taxes.
The decision represents one of the district's most significant employee compensation increases in recent years and comes as rising costs for groceries, housing, utilities and other necessities continue to affect household budgets.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index, consumer prices increased approximately 39.6% between September 2016 and September 2026.
That means an item costing $100 a decade ago would cost approximately $139.60 today.
For example, a school employee earning $40,000 in 2016 would need to earn approximately $55,840 today to maintain the same purchasing power.
With raises totaling 25.5%, that employee's salary would have increased to $50,200, leaving a difference of $5,640 compared with the amount needed to keep pace with inflation.
In other words, while employee salaries increased over the past decade, the cost of living rose even faster.
Before the latest raise, employees who received the full 25.5% cumulative increase had approximately 10.1% less inflation-adjusted purchasing power than they did 10 years ago.
The newly approved 13% increase changes that picture considerably.
When the additional 13% is applied to a salary that has already increased 25.5%, the combined increase over the original salary is approximately 41.8%, not 38.5%.
The difference is the result of how percentage increases are calculated.
The new 13% raise is based on an employee's current salary, not the salary that employee earned in 2016.
Using the same example, an employee earning $40,000 in 2016 whose salary had increased to $50,200 would now earn $56,726 following the latest raise.
That represents a total salary increase of $16,726, or approximately 41.8%, over the original $40,000 salary.
By comparison, a 39.6% increase in the cost of living would require that employee to earn $55,840 to maintain the same purchasing power.
The new salary of $56,726 would exceed that amount by $886.
The example illustrates how the board's latest action is intended to close the gap between employee compensation and inflation.
While the board's previous raises had fallen short of keeping pace with rising consumer prices, the additional 13% brings the combined salary increase slightly above the stated inflation rate.
Individual employees' salaries and raises may vary, but the calculation demonstrates the effect of applying the new percentage increase to current salaries.
The board's decision also reflects a different approach to providing employee raises.
Over the past decade, raises totaling 25.5% averaged approximately 2.6 percentage points annually when divided across 10 years.
The newly approved 13% raise represents the equivalent of five years of 2.6% increases using simple addition.
However, rather than distributing those increases over five years, the board approved the entire amount immediately.
The move allows employees to benefit from the higher salary now, when inflation has already reduced their purchasing power.
It also means the district will begin absorbing the full $2.8 million annual expense immediately rather than gradually increasing payroll costs over several years.
The financial impact of the decision was a major consideration during the meeting.
Curry told board members that, based on the district's current financial structure, the additional expense can be sustained for five years.
The size of the pay increase also raised questions about whether the district would need to increase property taxes to cover the additional expense.
Hoskins said no tax increase is required under the district's current financial structure.
"No, not under the current structure unless the board chooses to do so," Hoskins said. "The board has not increased property taxes, and personally, I will never vote to increase them in the future."
Hoskins noted that the board establishes its property tax rate each September and said the district has maintained the same rate for many years.
"We have held the same rate for many, many years, and I don't foresee any reason it would change," he said.
The district's ability to absorb the additional payroll expense without an immediate tax increase reflects the financial planning outlined by Curry during the meeting.
Despite the positive news for employees, the meeting was not without controversy.
Tensions rose during comments from Vice Chairman Roy Glenn Allen, who told the audience he had consistently supported giving school employees a raise.
Allen then pointed toward Superintendent William Sexton and made it clear he did not support giving the superintendent an increase.
The exchange added to an already tense atmosphere inside the crowded meeting room.
Cornett later reminded board members of the district's financial struggles in previous years and the progress made toward improving its financial position.
A heated exchange followed between Cornett and Allen concerning rumors about the possibility of not renewing Sexton's contract in the future.
Sexton remains under contract for approximately another year and a half.
The discussion eventually subsided, allowing board members to continue with the remaining business on the agenda.
Among the other major actions taken during the special-called meeting was approval of an approximately $1.3 million districtwide school security system designed to improve surveillance, building access and student safety.
(See related story.)
For Clay County school employees, however, the most significant action of the meeting was the 13% salary increase, which will provide additional compensation as families continue to deal with the rising cost of living.
The board's decision also continues a decade of efforts to improve employee pay while maintaining the district's financial stability.
With the newly approved increase, an employee who received the full 25.5% in previous raises would see a combined salary increase of approximately 41.8% over the past decade, slightly exceeding the 39.6% increase in consumer prices during that period.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here