Nashua aldermen approve FY2027 budget after long debate over unaffiliated raises and tax impact

The Nashua Board of Aldermen approved the city—iscal year 2027 budget (Resolution R-26-028) late Wednesday after an extended session that featured contentious debate over pay increases for unaffiliated (nonunion) employees and repeated procedural questions about vote thresholds.

Mayor Jim Doncic opened discussion by defending a budget package that he said attempted to limit tax increases amid rapidly rising fixed costs — including a roughly $3.5 million rise in health insurance and more than $1 million in liability and special-education costs — while funding core services. The mayor said he recommended cost-of-living and salary-study adjustments but not step increases for unaffiliated staff, and that change saved about $415,000 in his proposal.

Aldermen split sharply over whether the board should restore full salary-study adjustments for all unaffiliated employees or treat the measure as an "all-or-nothing" commitment that must cover the entire unaffiliated group. Alderman Kelly and several colleagues argued the board had promised unaffiliated raises and should fulfill those expectations; opponents, including Aldermen Tebow and Johnson, said adding roughly $404,617 at the final meeting required offsetting cuts or deeper review and would add to taxpayers' bills.

CFO Don Enright told the board the net effect of the amendments adopted on the floor increased the budget by about $67,615 over the mayor—iled proposal after late technical corrections and a small $10,083 reduction to a clerk digitization line. Enright estimated that $2.8 million equals approximately a 1% change in the budget, and that the adopted unaffiliated addition translated to roughly a 0.10% budget increase or about $50 on the average taxpayer for the year.

Several motions to find offsets failed. A proposal to cut $1,000,000 from Administrative Services failed 2—or, 11 against; a separate plan to reduce a police body-camera implementation line by $900,000 failed 1—or, 12 against. Aldermen pressing for reductions said they wanted line-item specificity rather than a bottom-line cut; department directors and the mayor warned key accounts (insurance, workers' compensation and other contractually driven lines) leave little discretionary "fluff" to trim.

After a final roll call, the amended budget passed by 9 yeas to 6 nays. The board also adopted a short list of small amendments approved on the floor (including the clerk-digitization reduction). Corporation Counsel Steve Bolton and staff advised aldermen on vote thresholds: because the board had increased some line items above the mayor's original proposal, the full budget required a higher threshold for passage; members chose motions and sequencing accordingly.

The board and city officials discussed contingency paths if the budget had not been adopted before statutory deadlines: a continuing resolution could maintain last year's funding levels for ongoing operations, but some collective bargaining increases required spending authority that officials said would need to be addressed before July 1 to avoid legal exposure or contract violations. School district leaders warned that delaying final approval could affect summer programs and legally mandated services for special-education students.

The budget vote concluded a long public process: the meeting included public comments from residents urging more investment in homelessness response and endorsing a modest three-year secretaries' contract (R-26-041). The budget, as amended, now moves to implementation tasks spelled out by city staff.

The Board of Aldermen adjourned at 11:03 p.m.