Hendersonville leaders defer budget decision after heated debate over firefighter pay, trash fee and employee raises

Hendersonville, Tenn. — The Henderson Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted unanimously May 13 to defer final action on the city’s proposed fiscal 2025–26 budget after an extended public-comment period and several hours of discussion about pay for firefighters and other city employees, a proposed trash fee and multiple salary scenarios presented to the board.

The board’s postponement followed public testimony from residents and representatives of first-responder organizations who urged higher, permanent pay increases for the fire department. After debate, Alderman Alvin Robertson moved to defer the mayor’s budget to the board’s next meeting in May and required that any alternative budget proposals be presented at a Thursday workshop; the motion passed unanimously.

Why it matters: The debate exposed the trade-offs city leaders face between raising compensation for public-safety and other city employees, keeping property taxes steady, and the distributional effects of moving trash service charges off the property-tax base and onto an equal-per-household fee.

The public comment period was dominated by veterans, business owners and residents offering first-hand accounts of lifesaving responses by the Hendersonville Fire Department. Dale Payne, a resident and owner of Sumner Roofing Company, described being badly injured in a work accident and credited the fire department’s response with saving his life: “Without that quick response from the firemen, I don't know where I'd be today.” Brenda Allen, a longtime resident, recounted how firefighters and hospital staff revived her husband after his heart stopped, and she asked the board to “please give them the raise that they're due.”

Representatives of labor and public safety pressed the board directly. Matthew Sigmund, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 63, proposed a no-cost employee wellness program intended to reduce payroll-tax liability and provide added benefits for employees and retirees; he asked the city to “let them show you the numbers” in a formal review. Several residents and business owners, including real-estate business owner Brian Stewart, argued that low pay is causing firefighters to leave for neighboring jurisdictions and urged pay adjustments to retain personnel.

What the board debated

Mayor Jamie Clary introduced the budget ordinance (Ordinance 2025‑O9) for first reading and simultaneously presented an optional trash fee that would remove trash collection costs from the general fund. The city’s analysis showed trash-related expenses totaling $6,326,260 (brush disposal, disposal service and tipping fees). Dividing that amount by the city’s anticipated 21,300 customers produced a proposed flat fee of $297 per address. The mayor said adopting the fee would allow the city to lower the property-tax rate by 16.06¢ (from 58.83¢ to 42.77¢ per $100 assessed value) while covering trash costs directly.

Alderman Evan Evans and others presented calculations showing distributional effects. Using the city’s examples: for a $500,000 home, property taxes at the current rate are about $746; with the proposed tax-rate reduction the same homeowner would save about $211 while paying the $297 trash fee, for a net increase of about $86. A $250,000 home that now pays about $368 in property taxes would see the tax portion fall to $267 but would pay the $297 trash fee, a net increase of roughly $196.

Several aldermen criticized the trash-fee plan as regressive because it would not bill certain property classes (apartments, many businesses) and would shift costs disproportionately onto lower-value homeowners. After discussion the board voted on the trash-fee motion; the proposal failed by a roll vote (vote tally recorded by the presiding officer as 1 in favor, 12 opposed).

Salary scenarios and Robertson proposal

Finance staff presented five salary scenarios that differ in coverage and cost. The mayor’s baseline included a 2% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), a 2.5% merit pool and a 2.5% supplemental for employees who did not receive a midyear increase, plus a $2,000 flat payment for some employees. Highlights of the scenarios presented to the board: - Scenario 1 (fire only): a tiered increase that mirrors the police midyear split with an estimated net neutral effect (a small surplus of roughly $16,000 reported by staff). - Scenario 2 (most employees except police who got midyear raises): a tiered 10%/7.5%/2.5% split producing a general-fund deficit (approximately $623,000 under staff assumptions). - Scenario 3 (broader, heavier increases): a larger deficit approaching $1 million under the staff-neutral assumptions. - Scenario 4 (market parity): adjustments based on a 2023 pay study to move departments closer to market; staff presented that scenario as generating a small surplus (about $51,000) under the assumptions used. - Scenario 5 (Alderman Robertson’s plan): Robertson proposed a deferral of his earlier amendment and then explained his approach in detail earlier in the evening: a 2% COLA and 2.5% merit for all employees plus an additional 6% across pay grades up to grade 25 (grades 25–26 would receive a 2.5% increase). Robertson said the plan addresses mid‑management compression found in the 2023 pay study and called for funding the measure without a property-tax increase by moving $150,000 from the nonrecurring pay-study line to fund balance; under staff estimates that change would turn a $123,000 shortfall into a balanced position.

Board members expressed a range of views. Some said they would not support a property-tax increase now; others argued for balancing immediate raises against long-term sustainability and recommended a new pay study to inform future decisions. After extended discussion the board did not adopt any salary scenario on first reading. Instead Robertson moved to defer the mayor’s budget until the next board meeting and to require that any competing budget proposals be presented at the Thursday workshop; the motion passed unanimously.

Actions and outcomes (select) - Motion: Adopt a flat trash fee of $297 per household and reduce the property-tax rate by 16.06¢ (mover: Mayor Jamie Clary; second: Alderman Martin). Vote: failed (recorded tally 1 yes, 12 no). Notes: staff estimated 21,300 customers and $6,326,260 in trash-related expenditures; the fee would have shifted trash costs off the general fund and lowered the tax rate to 42.77¢. - Motion: Defer final action on the mayor’s proposed fiscal‑year 2025–26 budget until the board’s next meeting and require that any alternative budget proposals be presented at the Thursday workshop (mover: Alderman Alvin Robertson; second: Alderman Garza). Vote: passed unanimously.

The board also heard multiple individual appeals to prioritize permanent salary increases for firefighters rather than one-time bonuses. Kimberly Overton, a longtime resident, asked the board to “honor the intent and the integrity of ordinance 2004‑24 by approving a 10% salary increase for Hendersonville Fire Department personnel — not in the form of a one-time bonus, but as a permanent correction to the pay disparity.” Several speakers described instances where fire personnel provided emergency care and post‑incident follow-up, underscoring retention and morale concerns.

What’s next

The board scheduled a Thursday workshop to which Robertson required new proposals be submitted in advance. Members said they expect to reconvene with additional, written proposals and more time to review line‑by‑line tradeoffs before a second reading.

Context and constraints

City staff cautioned that the salary‑scenario cost estimates assumed the rest of the budget remained unchanged; to pay for larger raises without a tax increase would require offsetting savings or use of fund balance. Finance director Jesse (surname in transcript) noted that some special‑revenue funds and capital accounts could also be affected by larger salary increases presented in scenarios 2 and 3. The board repeatedly emphasized a desire to avoid immediate property‑tax increases but did not rule out future tax changes if a new pay study or other facts justify them.

Ending note: The May 13 session underscored the political and technical complexity of municipal budgeting — balancing public‑safety recruitment and retention, equity across departments, property‑tax impacts on homeowners, and the city’s long‑term fiscal posture. The board’s unanimous deferral gives members two weeks to exchange written proposals and return for a second reading.