Union presents $4.2 million Appendix B pay proposal; district warns state rules and data gaps will limit how TSIA funds are used

Union negotiators opened the June 24 bargaining session by presenting a full Appendix B compensation proposal that they said was driven by an internal survey of nearly 500 members. "Eighty-seven point eight percent said they wanted salary increases," the union representative said, and the proposal seeks to pair state TSIA allocations with district general funds to raise pay for instructional staff, with a focus on teachers with 10 or more years of experience.

The proposal outlined tiered payments intended to exceed last year’s top performance-pay level: a $500 base for the lowest tier, a jump to $1,300 at 10 years of service, and a maximum of $3,000 for the most senior employees. The union said the total package, after fringe costs are considered, was about $4.2 million and that the plan is targeted to reappointed and returning personnel rather than new hires.

The district’s representative responded that state law and recent appropriations change how TSIA/TSI funds may be used. "I have to follow this," the district official said, summarizing their understanding of Senate Bill 1296 and the language in House bills referenced in the session (HB 501E and HB 503E). The district noted that those measures and statute 1012.22 limit how certain appropriated salary funds are treated, that TSIA allocations carry a maximum per-employee limit the district cannot exceed with those specific funds, and that DOE will expect a clear, auditable allocation plan.

District staff described the practical challenge of identifying which employees qualify for the TSIA allocation. They said DOE staff data (EO line numbers and job codes) are needed to determine who counts as a full-time classroom teacher and reported an initial match of about 840 teachers who have 10 or more years of experience in Florida public schools. The district warned that local personnel files, late hires, reappointment timing and reporting errors in prior districts can all produce variance in the data a district must present to DOE.

On budget math, the district said the district’s share of available funds (after fringe and charter deductions) left roughly $1.7 million that it could allocate as part of a TSIA plan; union cost estimates placed the proposed package in the $3.2–4.2 million range depending on which employees are included. Both sides acknowledged those totals will shift as reappointment and payroll data are finalized.

Both sides discussed whether and how to fold performance pay into the TSIA-driven increase. The district emphasized that the performance-pay statute remains in force and that districts around the state are interpreting the new appropriations language in different ways — some offering flat amounts, others adding longevity components — but no district plan had yet been universally accepted or approved in the session’s discussion.

The district urged caution because DOE requires audited, traceable allocations: the district must be able to show how funds were allocated by EO code and job code when it reports to the Florida Department of Education. The district also noted an administrative deadline tied to impasse procedures and fast-track provisions, pointing to a July 30 timeline the parties must consider.

Negotiators set follow-up meetings for July 1 at the district office, a July 15 session at 10:00 a.m., and a tentative July 21 afternoon hold. No agreement was reached at the June 24 session; both sides said they would continue working on data verification, statutory interpretation and cost modeling before the next meeting.