Wagoner council fails to approve city and EMS budgets after heated debate over pay and policies

The City of Wagoner failed to adopt its fiscal 2025–26 city and EMS budgets on June 11 after a 4–2 roll-call vote left the package short of the support needed to pass. The vote followed hours of public comment and council debate focused on salary increases, a recently adopted wage study and proposed employee-handbook changes.

The council’s discussion ranged from questions about how raises were calculated to calls for a line-by-line review of proposed employee-policy changes. Resident Donna Gaither, who identified herself as a paralegal and Wagoner resident, spoke during the budget public hearing about several line items and asked how funds set aside for the cemetery and animal-control building would be used. “I live here in Wagoner,” Gaither said. “I would like better understanding of [the budget items].”

Councilors and staff also spent significant time debating the council’s previous decision to implement a wage-study-based pay schedule and whether future raises should be merit-based rather than tied to that study. Several council members and department heads asked for more time and a committee to develop a pay/merit approach for next year; others urged caution about making unilateral salary changes on the eve of budget adoption.

City staff reported a few line-item changes since the prior budget draft, including projected increases in cash-on-hand in some funds and updated numbers for positions and benefits in multiple departments. Staff also said the city had budgeted to fund a WIDA (Wagoner Industrial and Development Authority) director as a city employee with total compensation of about $82,000, to be paid through economic development transfers rather than as a direct WIDA appropriation.

Council members cited the need for more precise numbers and agreed that the employee-handbook item should be highlighted and reviewed line by line before formal adoption. Several councilors said they wanted a clearer, documented approach to performance-based raises and a process for individual salary changes so the council could make equitable decisions for employees across departments.

When the final motion to approve the budgets was called, the roll call was: Wagner — yes; Hagenbotham — yes; North — yes; Wright — no; Wilson — no; Sampson — yes. The clerk announced the motion failed. The council did not adopt the budgets and did not set a final adoption date during the meeting.

The council also moved to table a separate agenda item asking the body to amend and adopt the employee policies and procedures manual; staff and council members said they plan a future meeting to compare the old and proposed handbook side-by-side and to highlight changes.

For now, the city remains without an adopted set of budgets for FY2025–26; staff said they will return with revised materials and recommended next steps for formal adoption.