A Senate committee on [date not specified] voted to adopt a committee substitute for Senate Bill 506 that would create an annual market pay enhancement for certified teachers in counties where regional home prices exceed the West Virginia median.

The bill would require the State Board to determine the West Virginia median home price and regional median prices for each of the state's 55 counties, calculate a multiplier from the difference, and apply that multiplier to the average teacher base salary to produce a lump-sum enhancement. The State Board would certify required enhancements to the State Auditor by March 31 in any year a recalculation is required. The bill sets a schedule for recalculation and distribution: apply the multiplier beginning July 15, 2025 and every five years thereafter; begin lump-sum distributions on July 15, 2026 and every July 15 thereafter.

The committee substitute was presented by committee counsel, who described the formula and timing. Counsel said the “market pay enhancement means the positive difference from subtracting the West Virginia median home price from the regional median home price” and explained how a multiplier would be calculated and applied to the average teacher salary.

Committee discussion focused on implementation details and fiscal impact. Deputy Superintendent White (appearing for the State Board) confirmed the department had run county-by-county calculations and provided examples in the fiscal note: the fiscal note presented to the committee estimated a state cost of about $169,000,000 and additional county board costs around $13.9 million. Committee members asked whether the enhancement would be additive to step increases (it would), whether counties outside border areas could be affected (yes), and how the multiplier treats contiguous counties near state lines (the sponsor and staff said bordering out‑of‑state counties would be included when relevant).

Members raised concerns about volatility if home prices fall and about equity across poorer counties that would receive no enhancement. Several senators urged adjustments or caps so the program would be fiscally effective without unduly large outlays. One senator suggested an upper limit tied to a percentage of annual salary to make the proposal more palatable to finance committee members; others warned that a weak enhancement would not retain teachers.

An amendment offered by the senior senator from the thirteenth was adopted; it requires comparing the regional formula to a single-county median calculation and using whichever produces the larger enhancement for a given teacher (committee members described the change as “either/or based on which would benefit the teacher more”). The chair asked the fiscal staff to produce a breakout showing the amendment's cost separately from the remainder of the bill.

After debate and adoption of the amendment, the vice chair moved that the committee substitute, as amended, be reported to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass and, under the original double committee reference, be first referred to the Committee on Finance. The motion carried by voice vote; the chair declared the ayes had it.

The committee did not set final funding sources in the bill text; staff told senators the fiscal note assumed most costs would come from the state budget but that county boards would incur some expense. The State Board may propose rules in accordance with Article 3 rulemaking procedures to implement the enhancement if the Legislature passes the measure.

Looking ahead, committee members said they expect the Finance Committee to review the fiscal note closely, and requested county-by-county breakdowns and a separate costing of the amendment before further action.