Gardner City Council adopts resolution opposing proposed building department fee increases

The Gardner City Council on April 7 voted to adopt a resolution opposing proposed building department fee increases, taking the position by a roll-call vote of 8 yes and 2 no.

The resolution (Item 11515) was presented to the council as a formal expression of disapproval of a package of fee changes that the building commissioner had submitted. President Tayros said the council needed to “quickly and decisively reject this” to avoid the perception that it was considering the changes. “This proposal would substantially increase those costs and give nothing additional to our residents or businesses in return,” Tayros said.

Councilors who spoke in favor of the resolution said the timing and size of the increases were inappropriate. Councilor Kacinskas argued that the fee proposal was premature relative to an earlier five-year review schedule and flagged what he described as a perceived link between the fee proposal and a separate, same‑day salary request for the building commissioner. “I do not want any of our constituents to think … that we will consider raising fees to pay for salary increases of that department head,” Kacinskas said.

Councilor Thibaut Munoz and Councilor Cormier each said they understood pressures on the city budget and pay scales but nevertheless supported the resolution as the proper procedural response at this time. Opponents said the resolution improperly foreclosed options during the FY26 budget process. Councilor Brooks said she would vote no because she wanted to preserve “wiggle room” for the mayor and budget negotiations; she added that a no vote did not mean she favored fee increases.

Councilors cited specific elements from the package in packet materials, including examples flagged by speakers: a 50% increase to the minimum building‑permit fee; a 28.5% increase to per‑square‑foot fees for new single‑ and two‑family permits; higher sign fees; and larger fence permits. Speakers also referenced a recently settled contract with Teamsters Local 170 covering non‑department head inspectors as context for salary pressures that prompted the building‑department request.

The clerk conducted a roll call. Votes recorded were: Brooks — No; Craig Cormier — Yes; Dan Lawitz — Yes; Harder — Yes; Healy — Yes; Hegland — Yes; Kazinskas/Kacinskas — Yes; Thibaut Munoz — No; Tassone — Yes; President Tayros — Yes. The council president announced: “That is 8 yes and 2 no. The resolution passes.”

The resolution is a policy statement of council opposition; it does not prevent the mayor from later submitting a different fee proposal during the budget process, several speakers noted. The mayor had not forwarded a fee proposal to the council at the time of the vote, though the packet and the clerk’s office contained the building commissioner’s submission, and finance‑committee members said the mayor spoke favorably of letting the resolution proceed during the committee meeting earlier that evening.

The council provided no date for any further formal consideration of building‑department fees; members said a broader, publicly noticed review would be appropriate as part of budget work for FY26.