Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget Salaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gardner City Council delays vote on nonunion salary step ordinance, requests full salary study
Summary
At an informal June 2 meeting the Gardner City Council voted to table Ordinance 11539 — a proposed step-based nonunion compensation schedule — and requested the full salary study, working-group documentation, job descriptions and multi‑year cost projections before further consideration.
At an informal meeting on June 2, 2025, the Gardner City Council voted to table Ordinance 11539 — an amendment to Chapter 8 (Personnel) to replace Attachment 1, Schedule E, the nonunion compensation schedule — and requested detailed supporting materials from the mayor before further action.
Council President opened the item and said the council had received the proposed salary ordinance 19 days earlier and that it would "require more information, and we certainly need more time." He told colleagues he favored a "sequential approach: first, we complete our work with the fiscal year budget, and then with that foundation in place, we can give the step scale pay ordinance the thorough, focused, and financially responsible consideration it truly requires." He added, "This is about diligence and not delay."
The council debated tradeoffs between affordability and retention. Councilor Hegland said the decision centered on "how much we can afford to do and what the costs of doing nothing are," noting raises would set the stage for future budgets. Councilor Mack said she supported raises in principle but questioned the salary study's process and recommended a uniform percentage scale with a separate longevity step every five years. Councilor Brooks, a former city auditor and department head, cautioned that market adjustments and a negotiated process can prompt wider requests if not handled carefully.
Councilors outlined specific information they wanted before acting: the full salary study, a roster of the salary working-group members and an explanation of their methods, job descriptions for affected positions, and cost projections showing the fiscal impact at 1, 3, 5 and 10 years. Councilor Agnew submitted three draft amendments for future consideration during that extended review.
The formal motion to request the materials and table the discussion was moved from the floor, seconded and approved by voice vote. Councilor Hegland then moved — and the council approved — referring item 11539 to the Committee of the Whole for further study. The council president also proposed beginning future budget review using current ordinance salary line items as a baseline while the compensation ordinance is examined.
Why it matters: Council members and staff repeatedly flagged the proposal's fiscal scale during the meeting. The council president said the ordinance has a near‑term budget impact and that, under current projections discussed at the meeting, the new step system "could" raise city salary costs substantially over coming years; he warned the city could spend "up to three quarters of a million dollars more on salaries by fiscal 2028 for about 60 city employees" if the step schedule is implemented as proposed. Councilors asked the mayor for precise, line‑by‑line cost reconciliations before any ordinance vote.
Next steps: The council instructed the clerk to schedule an additional informal budget meeting (tentatively June 9) so members and the public can review newly posted departmental hearings. The referral to the Committee of the Whole and the information requests will be the vehicle for the council's deeper review of the proposed nonunion compensation schedule.
