Somerville proposes new nonunion pay framework with $65,000 minimum; councilors press for elected and commission pay changes

Somerville — City human resources and budget officials presented a proposed nonunion classification and compensation plan to the Finance Committee on Jan. 30 that would reorganize job grades into six pay bands, create separate tracks for credentialed professions and raise the minimum starting salary in the lowest band to $65,000 per year.

“The beginning compensation for [band 1] will be $65,000 per year,” Anne Gill, Somerville’s director of human resources, told councilors. Gill described the study as a multi‑year, consultant‑led effort that evaluated approximately 575 unique positions, used a 13‑criteria job evaluation, and compared Somerville to a set of peer municipalities. The study’s core goals, Gill said, were clarity, equity and improved recruitment and retention.

Nut graf: The administration’s proposal would significantly boost pay at the low end of the nonunion scale and create new professional tracks for credentialed fields (an “S‑track” for roles requiring specific credentials and an “M‑track” for licensed engineers and solicitors). The plan also proposes stipends or pay adjustments for some boards and commissions, while recommending no change to city council, school committee or mayoral salaries at this time. Councilors pressed for additional documentation, questioned the consultant’s comparators and objected to the study’s estimate of the time city councilors spend on official duties.

Key features presented by HR and budget staff include: • A six pay‑band classification (pay band 1 through 6) with a new distribution intended to consolidate many small legacy grades and make pay scales more transparent. • A $65,000 minimum starting salary for individual contributors in the lowest band and larger percentage increases concentrated at the low end of the wage scale. • An S‑track for positions that require specific professional credentials (for example CPAs or licensed social workers) and an M‑track for professional engineers and solicitors with separate market comparisons. • A proposal to begin rollout retroactive to the first pay period in January, pending council approval.

Budget Director Mike Mastroboni reviewed comparable‑city research and said the administration was not proposing salary changes for elected officials at this time. “Based on median and average compensation among the comparable communities, we’re currently proposing no salary changes for the city council,” Mastroboni said, adding that the city estimated a councilor’s official‑capacity time at about 450 hours per year plus a 33% buffer (the presentation translated that to an illustrative $40,000 annual stipend, roughly $66.67 per estimated hour).

Councilors raised multiple questions and concerns. Councilor Ewan Kampen asked why the Licensing Commission was not placed in the highest commission tier; Gill said the highest tier was reserved for bodies with substantial fund allocation and enforcement authority (for example the Affordable Housing Trust and Job Creation and Retention Board). Several councilors—most loudly Councilor Joe Scott and Councilor Burnley—questioned the study’s estimate of council hours and the broader practice of councilors setting their own compensation; Scott called a frozen stipend “an effective pay cut” given inflation since 2016. Councilors requested the underlying comparators, the consultant’s position‑by‑position mapping and meeting‑hours data used to estimate elected officials’ workload.

The presentation also proposed updating stipends for boards and commissions, including paying some bodies that were previously unpaid (the Job Creation and Retention Board and Affordable Housing Trust were called out for pay where previously unpaid). Gill said the city had reviewed enabling ordinances and state law to create a three‑tiered stipend structure and proposed a 5% increase for committee chairs and a 50% increase for alternate members where applicable.

Next steps: Gill said staff would seek to implement the changes retroactive to January if the council approves them and emphasized that the mayor and council would still need to authorize budget changes. Councilors asked that the administration provide the consultant’s classification tables, comparable‑city data, the clerk’s meeting‑time spreadsheet used for hours estimates and the full MOA documents for recently settled union contracts. Mastroboni indicated the administration planned to place detailed materials before the full council in early February for formal consideration.

Ending: The Finance Committee accepted the presentation and committee members said they would continue the review before any ordinance or budget action; councilors requested additional documentation to review prior to the full council vote.