Gardner Council to Study Proposal to Revise Nonunion Compensation Schedule; Finance Committee Referral Approved

A majority of Gardner City councilors voted Monday to send a proposed ordinance that would replace the city’s nonunion compensation schedule to the Finance Committee for further review and study.

The measure, introduced on the agenda as “an ordinance to amend the City of Gardner Chapter 8 (personnel) to replace Attachment 1, Schedule E (nonunion compensation schedule),” prompted an extended discussion about how the proposed salary grid was developed, its near- and long-term cost and how employee pay would be allocated across the general fund and enterprise accounts.

The proposal discussed at the Committee of the Whole would put 19 department heads and about 32 additional nonunion employees onto a multi-step grid. Mayor Brown said the working group that developed the draft included the city auditor, John Richard; Director of Public Works Dane Arnold; IT Director Bob O’Keefe; City Engineer Rob Oliver; City Assessor Christine Kumar; and HR Director Amanda Morris. The mayor said the working group met roughly five times this spring and that the salary survey contractor used a 50th-percentile comparison against 16 other communities to create minimum, median and maximum ranges for comparable positions.

Councilor Hegland, who opened the substantive discussion, said a grid could reduce subjectivity in raises but criticized missing documentation tying the salary-study findings to the mayor’s proposed figures. Hegland said the packet lacked a clear explanation of how the study’s results were used, and he cited a 10-year projection in the packet that, he said, showed roughly $2,500,000 in additional spending over a decade once baseline implementation costs are included.

Other councilors questioned how the proposal shifts salary costs between the general fund and enterprise funds (water, sewer, golf, solid waste and landfill closure). Councilor Heath asked whether the percentage splits used to allocate time to enterprise accounts — cited as roughly a one‑third allocation for some positions in the packet discussion — were supported by time studies or other documentation. Mayor Brown and staff responded that enterprise‑fund allocations are governed by state law and reviewed by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue; they also cited precedent from a court case (referred to in the discussion as the Emerson case) that limits use of enterprise funds to benefits and operations of the enterprises’ ratepayers.

The mayor told councilors that the working group’s original proposal had used larger step differentials (the working group’s draft proposed 8 percent between steps and earlier concepts used 12 percent), but city financial projections limited what the administration recommended. The mayor said the administration’s ordinance as presented would use a 4 percent step between levels to begin moving most positions toward the median in the salary-survey ranges while keeping the plan affordable in multi-year projections.

Councilors also raised process and transparency questions: multiple councilors asked for the identity of working-group members, the method used by the working group to decide final figures, and a full breakdown of which stipend or allowance items are included in the base schedule versus paid separately. The mayor provided the working-group membership on the record and said a two‑page letter from the group appears in the packet; the mayor also said he would provide a clearer breakdown of stipends and other pay components that do not appear in the base step schedule.

During discussion the mayor acknowledged several clerical omissions from the ordinance packet and said the airport manager, civil defense director and sealer of weights and measures had been unintentionally left out of the ordinance and would be added back in. The mayor also said two positions in the packet — director of veteran services (Corey Hasselman) and the senior center director (Lauren Bimler) — had fallen outside the salary-survey bounds; the director of veteran services had already accepted a position in Leominster, the mayor said.

Councilors debated whether the step system should be purely longevity based or include a merit component. The administration said it considered merit-based bonuses but cited auditing and legal limits on one‑time bonuses and expressed concern that year-to-year merit adjustments would create budgeting uncertainty; the mayor said the step timeline (shorter intervals for early steps, longer for later steps) was designed to balance retention and fiscal predictability.

After further comments and requests for additional detail from the administration (including an Excel version of the cost projections and a line-by-line breakdown of enterprise vs. general-fund cost shares), Councilor Hegland moved — and Councilor Heath seconded — to send the ordinance to the Finance Committee for review and study. The motion carried on a voice vote of “Aye.”

The Council did not adopt the ordinance Monday; the referral sends the draft back to committee so staff can supply the additional documentation councilors requested and the Finance Committee can produce a report and recommendations for the full Council.

Clarifying details provided during the meeting included: the salary-study packet was reported as roughly 600+ pages; working-group meetings were described as about five sessions this spring; the administration’s proposal would start most employees at their current pay as step 1 and move to step 2 in the first anniversary year with 4 percent between steps in the administration’s recommended schedule; and two positions were noted as outside the survey bounds and adjusted to the survey minimum in the draft.

Next steps: the Finance Committee will review the ordinance, requested documentation and supplemental cost spreadsheets and report back to the full Council before any final vote or appropriation is taken.