GARDNER — During an informal Gardner City Council meeting on Monday, June 2, 2025, councilors postponed a major decision on new salary scales for non-city union employees, as members sparred over pay raises, city services, and transparency in the $90 million fiscal year 2026 budget.
In a meeting dominated by debate over a step-based pay raise system for non-union city employees, councilors cited both the scope of proposed increases—potentially adding three-quarters of a million dollars to the annual payroll by fiscal year 2028—and a lack of complete information, as reasons for delay.
Council President George Tyros opened the discussion by outlining concerns about the salary ordinance’s timing and long-term cost projections
“We were given the salary ordinance just 19 days ago—an ordinance that just this year has a budget impact of nearly $350,000,” Tyros said. “And because it introduces a step raise system based on our current roster, its impact might be another $178,200 or $527,246 total next year. Year three could cost another $200,216—or $727,463. So by fiscal 2028, we could be spending up to three-quarters of a million dollars more on salaries than today for just about 60 of our city employees.”
Tyros emphasized, “I am, however, opposed to implementing a significant—probably the most significant—salary increase per employee in the city’s history with limited data, limited time, and a limited understanding of future impacts in the middle of reviewing an over $90 million budget.”
Councilors question equity, process, and city priorities
Multiple councilors expressed skepticism about the mayor’s salary study and the process itself. Councilor Jack Mack said, “The council did vote for a salary study which was in my opinion poorly conducted. I’m not even sure every councilor has received a copy…I don’t believe it’s overall useful but I’m trying to still plow through it to see how it can be considered seeing we paid so much money for it.”
Mack said the salary study group, which included several department heads, conducted its work without the mayor ever presenting the group’s findings to either the finance committee or the city council.
Mack called for a “salary scale with the same percentage increase across the board for all non-union positions and the longevity taken out of the wage increase and put on a separate line item for each employee with a step-increase for every five years of service for the city similar to other city professional contracts such as the teachers union.” She then warned, “During this fiscal uncertainty I’m not sure I can fully support what’s been proposed, but I’m really willing to look at a more reasonable salary scale and other options.”
Councilor Elizabeth Kazinskas echoed the need for more transparency and data: “It is the responsibility of the city council to make informed decisions in the best interest of the city and we can only make informed decisions if we have all of the information. I don’t believe that we have all the information that we need right now to thoroughly and fully consider this item. And specifically, I would like to see the entire salary study, information on the salary working group, and information on what they did in that working group.”
Kazinskas moved to table the ordinance and formally request the full salary study, a breakdown of the working group’s methods, and long-term cost projections—a motion that passed unanimously.
City staff needs vs. basic operational needs
Several councilors and the president drew a stark contrast between the scale of the proposed raises and basic operational needs that have gone unmet. Tyros recounted issues raised in budget hearings: “We’re not budgeting for a replacement coffee machine for the clerk’s office; bathrooms were out of order, and trash wasn’t cleaned up in City Hall due to labor shortages. Employees were wearing winter gloves and hats while working in their offices because we couldn’t fix the heat in City Hall for six weeks.”
Councilor Mack and others called for departments to rely less on “free cash” for routine expenses like new vehicles, urging these needs be included in department budgets instead.
“Free cash needs are indisputably used to supplement snow and ice, but they shouldn’t be dependent to replace budgetary items,” Mack said.
Concerns about retaining department heads
Some councilors, while wary of the proposal’s size, stressed that delaying raises could drive valuable employees away. Councilor Karen Hardern noted, “If some or all do not get those raises, will they go or will they stay? We don’t know that…The way the world is today, people need more money just to survive. It’s tough out there.”
Councilor Dana Heath added, “I don’t want to see anyone leave…We support the department heads. We understand it’s hard out here today. I’m out in the stores every day; I know how hard it is, I see the grocery bills, I know how much it costs to be able to get by. So, I understand the want for a raise, I asked for one in my personal job…But, I think we definitely need to go ahead and look into this…and make sure that we’re giving them what they need, whether that’s exactly what’s on this paper or if it’s amended and adjusted.”
Other budget details: public works, professional development, and department narratives
The meeting also included discussion about significant cuts to requested funding for road repairs ($4.3 million) and new equipment ($1.425 million), with Mayor Michael Nicholson explaining these “wish list” items could be funded with grants or free cash later in the year.
Mayor Nicholson explained that when departments submit their budgets, they’re asked to provide both a realistic budget and a “wish list” version that includes everything needed for the department to run at full capacity—with all desired upgrades and improvements. The larger numbers referenced include projects like repaving every street in the city rated in the worst condition and replacing aging vehicles in the Department of Public Works. He added that, according to the city’s financial policies, funding for such items is often requested later through free cash appropriations.
Councilor Brad Heglin then questioned the nearly $100,000 budgeted for citywide professional development and travel, stating, “Almost all of our citywide departments have a line item for professional development and travel. In total next year, I know the mayor budgeted—if you add up every department—almost $100,000.”
He noted that while the overall figure represents a slight decrease from the previous year, some departments are slated to receive significant increases, prompting further scrutiny. Heglin said the funds reportedly cover professional association memberships and event attendance but added that he plans to look into the matter further.
“The way these funds are distributed, at least on their face, don’t appear to be equitable across the departments, and I think some more transparency on this would be a good thing,” Heglin said. Later adding, “My other thought is, if we step back and look at the whole budget, there’s really not a lot of discretionary spend. Once you back out salaries, core requirements, health insurance, pension liability, and energy costs, that discretionary money—like $100,000—is actually a pretty significant figure, considering what’s actually left on the table.”
What’s next?
The council assigned the pay scale ordinance to the Committee of the Whole for further study, and will revisit it after receiving the requested data. The next informal budget meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 9 to give councilors and the public more time to review departmental budget hearings and committee videos, some of which were only posted hours before the meeting.
The fiscal year 2026 budget, including the contentious salary schedule, will remain under council review through at least mid-June.
