I now call the Gardener City Council Tuesday, September 2nd, 2025 meeting to order. The clerk will now please call the role. >> Councelor Brooks, >> present. >> Councelor Craig Cormier, >> present. >> Councelor Dowitz, >> present. >> Councelor Hardurn. >> Council Heath, >> present. >> Council Heg, >> present.
>> Council Kaziscus, present. Council Matt >> present. >> Council Satani >> Yep. >> present. >> Council Tibbo Munos >> present. >> And President Tyrus >> present. Those who wish may now rise for the opening prayer in the pledge of allegiance. >> God, we thank thee for bringing us together this evening. Inspire us to
worthy deeds and sound decisions and direct us toward the attaining of good city government. We pray to bless all the people of our city and to guide and inspire us that we may liberate unity and harmony. Amen. I allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Announcement of open meeting recordings. Any person may make a video or audio recording of an open session of a
meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium subject to reasonable requirements of the chair as to the number, placement, and operation of equipment used so as to not interfere with the conduct of the meeting. Any person intending to make such recording shall notify the chair forth with all documents and exhibits used to reference
that the meeting must become submitted in duplicate to the city clerk as they become part of the meeting minutes. Is anyone recording tonight's meeting? >> No response. >> We'll begin with the reading and approvals of the June 2nd, 2025 informal
and the June 2nd, 2025 regular meeting minutes. Councelor Cormier. >> Move to wave the reading on the minutes and accept them as printed. >> Second. >> Motion made by councelor Cormier. Second by councelor Tone to wave the reading minutes and accept them as presented. Is there discussion on the motion?
>> All those in favor? I. I. >> All those opposed? No. >> Motion passes. [Music] There are no public hearings. There are no communications from the mayor. There are no petitions, applications, or
communications. Reports of standing committees. Welfare committee. Item 11591. An ordinance to amend the gardener zoning map by changing the zoning district designation for the following existing parcel lying on the easterly
side of MA-101 in eastern gardener from the commercial 2 zoning district to the industrial 1 zoning district with summit solar overlay as submitted by attorney Christine Tree. Councelor Mack, >> I make a motion to send this ordinance
to second and final printing. >> Second. Motion made by councelor Max, second by councelor Tibo Munos to send this item to its second and final printing. Is there discussion? All those in favor I. I. >> All those opposed, no.
>> Motion passes. At this time, there being no objection, I would like to go through the appointments committee items. Uh is there any objection? Beginning with item 11617, a measure confirming the mayor's appointment of Mario Guay to the
position of board of registars for a term expiring September 20th, 2028. Council Heath. >> Thank you, President Tyros. I'd like to uh I'm sorry. Um
the uh committee met with um the mayor and we'd like to go ahead and u put this in front of full counsel. We voted unanimously to go ahead and um put this through. That's it. >> Move to confirm the appointment. >> Yes. Move to confirm the appointment. Sorry. >> Second.
>> Motion made by councelor Heath to confirm the mayor's appointment. Second by councelor Heglin. Is there discussion? Council Heath. >> All right. Um thank you, President Tyros. Um sorry for that. I didn't have my paper in front of me. Um Mr. was first appointed to the board of
registars in 2013 as a Republican member. Um this is a reappoint. Mr. Quay is a resident of Garden has been in the position for 12 years with strong ties to the city. Uh he is one of two Republican members under the general
laws of the Commonwealth of the Board registers. He uh we have to have close to a equal makeup of the ma major political parties with three members being appointed by the mayor and the
city clerk acting as the ex official um voting fourth member of the committee. Ties of the board would end in a no vote under the general laws, but there are there has to be four members that weigh it as as close to equal as possible as
he alongside Patricia Derby uh represent the Republican side. The Democratic side consists of members Marcel Cormier along with city clerk TT um Sarapan. The four of them make up the board of registars. The appointment committee unanimously
voted to move this appointment to the full city council to be certified. As I already said, I apologize. >> Thank you. Council Heath has further discussion. >> All those in favor? I. >> All those opposed? No. Motion passes.
Item 11626, a measure confirming the police officer assignments to polling locations. Councelor Heglin. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Three to the council. Move the measure be confirmed. >> Second. Motion made by councelor Hegeland, second by councelor Jernowitz
to uh confirm the measure. Is there discussion? Councelor Hegel. >> Thank you again, Mr. President. Um the appointments committee met on this last week. We were unanimously in favor of this. This is a technical part of the election season that we do regularly. Um this is just the list of list of
assignments assigning police officers to cover not only the polling locations and ensure that there's coverage all day but also to ensure that there's coverage of the ballot being escorted back to city hall from the polling locations. Uh we had no concerns and are you know again recommending this for confirmation.
>> Thank you councelor Heglin. Is there further discussion? All those in favor I. >> All those posed no. Motion passes. Item 11627, a measure confirming the mayor's
appointment of election officers for 2025 to 2026. Councelor Heglin. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Three to the council. Will the measure be confirmed? >> Second. >> Motion made by councelor Heglin, second by councelor Heath to confirm the measure. Is there discussion?
>> Council Hegel. >> Thank you again, Mr. President. Again, this is another typical and technical part of the election season, something that is done regularly. This is to uh confirm the batch of elections officers who work the polls, many of whom have been with the city and the clerk's office for many, many years. We do
appreciate their continued service in those roles. Uh the committee met on this last week and were in unanimous support of this rule. Thank you. >> Thank you, Councelor Hegman. Is there further discussion? All those in favor? I.
>> All those opposed, no. Motion passes. Next will be item 11551. Uh we'll take a brief recess before taking up this item. Thank you. 686. Is there any objection to continuing?
>> Item 11686, August economic and community development update. Councelor Kazinskus. >> Thank you, President Tyros. Uh we had a meeting on Friday, August 22nd of the Economic and Community Development Committee. Uh, Director Stevens gave us
an overview of what the department has been doing over the last month or so or the last couple of weeks since this previous um, update that he had sent us in writing. And uh, he does have a new assistant director. She was actually at the meeting. Her name is Amy Uaz. She
brings experience directly in uh, community development, specifically for community development block grant um, experience. and she has taken many of the previous years of basically backed up funding and she has closed out all of
those projects in in years of work and uh she did that within her first couple of weeks basically in the position. Uh I would definitely say as I typically do during these updates uh to watch the meeting as um she does explain some of
her previous experience. Uh we did talk about uh Mackie Park as well as um the uh regional planning commissions. A couple of items that have been on our um agenda for quite a while as well. Um they do have a plan for Mackie Park. Uh Director Stevens and the mayor have
worked with the issues that were solving the process and um have responded very well to the committee's suggestions uh to get that project moving forward. is we've kind of missed this season for Mackie Park. It is it is being used, but we wanted to be able to be accessible
for all and correct the mistakes uh that were made that were found in uh at the time councelor Tyros's report. And so they have updated us that they do expect work to begin um on that probably at some point in October. They're going to
have more of a thorough update for us at the next meeting. But uh the conversation has have started and um from a point where they had been working on this all along, but um things seem to be moving as um Verizon was respons
responsive finally and um they got an idea of what they're going to need to spend on um the fix of that and it's it's really it's a great plan and I'm glad that they've been so responsive. Um, and as far as the regional planning commissions, um, they are having some staffing challenges at MRPC. And
basically, uh, that has kind of solved some of the training that was supposed to happen in in our department, but Director Stevens is confident that they're going to be responsive, uh, when they have the correct people in the right positions to be able to get some more training to his newly hired staff. Uh, and then we also have a new um the
new business manager position has been filled as of the last couple of weeks and we decided to let her hold off since she'd been working for just a couple of days when our last meeting came up. Uh but she will be joining us during our September meeting and um has already Jason has said has hit the ground
running and given some examples at the meeting of some things that that she has done like getting an inventory of of space in the city and and different businesses and uh different uh spaces that are available. Um things that they want to do on a regular basis that Jason hasn't been able to put his uh attention
towards. So, those are just a few of the updates, but I would encourage just so I'm not talking the whole meeting about what's also on video. Um, but it's it's, you know, there's a lot of progress there. Uh, Jason is uh I'm sorry, Director Stevens is very responsive to the requests of the committee. Uh,
having a full staff finally at this point. Um, with all the work that he's gotten done pretty much on his own so far, he's going to learn what a 40-hour work week is like hopefully at some point soon and go home um at a regular time. But besides that, uh, he's we're really excited to see what he's going to
be able to do moving forward because the progress that's been made in that department is unbelievable. And now with a full staff, um, we should see more moving forward. So, we will have another, um, meeting in a couple weeks for his September update and he expects to have another big update then as well. Thank you. And with that, um, I would
say that we place the item on file. Make a motion. >> Second. >> Motion made by councelor Kazinska, second by councelor D. allow us to place the update on file. Is there discussion? All those in favor I >> I. All those opposed, no. Motion passes.
Uh let's continue with committee of the whole item 11466. A request from councelor Hardurn to have an informal meeting with the Monusa regional transit authority mart to discuss rider and pedestrian safety
and route utilization and ridership. Council dur allowance. >> Thank you President Dyros. I would move to place this item on file and send a letter of appreciation to the three members of March that came um and presented to us the other week. >> Second >> motion made by councelor journal. Second
by councelor Tony to uh place uh send a letter of appreciation to Mart and place the item on file. Is there discussion? Councelor generals. >> I' I'd like to also thank uh councelor Hardurn um who isn't here tonight for getting this um in front of us. It was an informative meeting. Um got a lot of
new information um that I at least personally didn't know about MART. Um so I think it was um it was time well used. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council allowance. Is there further discussion? All those in favor, I >> I.
>> All those opposed, no. Motion passes. Continuing on, um we'll be taking up item 11625 next under finance committee, a measure relative to the September 16th, 2025 city preliminary election.
Councilor Durowitz. >> Thank you, President Daros. Uh the finance committee met on this item. This kind of goes hand inhand with some of the other measures related to the polling locations and appointment of election officers. Um the council was in favor as this is needed to set up the
city's uh preliminary election and I move to I move to adopt the measure. >> Second motion made by councelor journal second by councelor Heath to adopt the measure. Is there discussion? All those in favor I.
>> All those opposed? No. Motion passes. We'll take item 11687 next. Council liaison, Waterford Community Center update. Councelor Hegman. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, as you know, President Tyrus appointed me to serve in his place
as the council liaison for the Waterford Community Center project. Subsequent to that, the mayor appointed me to be a communication specialist for the project. This role combined with the liaison role was to show committed energy uh in committed energy between the executive and legislative branches
to see this project through. Additionally, as the name suggests, the other goal was to improve communication between all stakeholders in this project and to keep this group as well the council updated. As such, I was enabled as and have been able to facilitate conversations and progress related to
the Waterford Community Center. Over the summer when the change took place, I met with Growing Places, the CAC, the senior center director, Alan McNelli from the historical commission, and the mayor. During my initial update to you all, I had reported that I had had productive conversations with Growing Places, who's
been operating for some time now, uh, and essentially at full capacity, and the CAC, who has continued to work on prepping their space to move in. Further updates for those two organizations include navigating minor bureaucratic procedures for growing places. Um brainstorming ways to keep their kitchen
space cool in the summer months until a future time when AC can be used in the kitchens. At this time, uh mini splits had not been put in there. We weren't sure of the need. Growing places had not requested it at that time. Um they at this time do not necessarily have the funds for that, but um you know, warm
hot summer days did make it uh rather toasty in there like is in any kitchen. Uh so we were looking at ways to improve that situation for the employees. Um we also spent time identifying their parking lot needs which I will address a bit further down in my report and just generally checking in on their progress
so far. Things do seem to be going smoothly for them. U they seem to be very happy with the space. There will be future conversations with Ann Eagle who's the director about potentially renting the old teachers lounge that's behind the gymnasium as additional office space for her and her staff. um
that of course would be it's something they've expressed interest in. They understand that it would up their rent. Uh so there's going to be more updates to come on that as those conversations take place. Similarly with the CAC, I've helped Julie Mian um you know get replies and coordinate with city employees as
necessary and and city officials. We identified the CAC's parking lot needs. Again, more to come on that. Uh some examples of the things we've been working on with the CAC. um you know working with our interim building commissioner and other city personnel to ensure the work that they need to
complete in order to move in is happening in a timely but proper fashion. So that ranges from walkthroughs of the space with their contractors, electricians, architects as they continue to plan things um and to investigate the CAC's needs for instance for an external grease trap, right?
Something that their kitchen's going to be required to have. Um is there already already existence? So things like that. Currently there is no set date for their official move. Um you know Julie and the CC have expressed that they're hoping to move entirely all at once. They're still
working on updating their kitchen. Um and they're still doing some other work in there that so you know it's not all on the city end. However, uh we are also hoping that the bathroom work will be done before they and that has gone up to bid and and that process is underway so that there will be public bathrooms uh
available for you know guests and frequent visitors of the CAC. And then additionally, we are looking into uh the mayor's office really is looking into some grants to fix up any of the sidewalks and ramps in that area. Um some of them are crumbling. They're they're functional, but they could be
better in a nicer condition. So, we're looking into those things and and the CAC is on board doing as much of that work as possible prior to moving in. I did meet with Alan McNelli from the Sorco Commission as well. Um, he's going to be heading up the city's archive effort to be housed at the center. We've
had a lot of great conversations about what his needs might be um for the project, just shelving, um, display cases. Is there going to be any air conditioning, climate control? So currently all of the old gardener news volumes are there um and just keeping
stuff preserved and he's been working with the schools with the museum and different organizations to collect things that he thinks would be worthy to include in that space. And then Mike Ellis, the director of the senior center and I have had a lot of good long positive and productive conversations around the senior center's eventual move
uh to the community center. We've discussed their move to the first floor side of twotory portion. We've done a walkthrough of that space for director Ellis to be able to start looking at setup and floor plan options um as he considers his needs and moving in. We've
identified any internal work that might need to be finished. A lot of work was already done, but do they want to maybe have some paint put up here and there? There's maybe some cosmetic work that might be needed. Um but addition, but essentially that that space is pretty ready to go. Um, you know, one thing I
can mention through the mayor, our efforts to fix the entryway. So, if you're familiar with the building, the twotory side where the playground is, the smaller, newer playground, there is a door with a step there. Um, it has gone out to bid to have that whole doorway ADA compliant. Um, very similar
to what was done to the main entryway, so have the automatic door openers. And included in that is going to be an a new ramp that'll at least serve until that other work is done so that it's handicap accessible. So, there's one small step and there'll be a ramp option as well.
And again, that's that grant that the mayor is looking into to fix up any like sidewalks um or cement work around the space. And then again, we we focused on and their parking lot needs. And so with that um you know besides looking at the whole building you know cleaning up the
floors small aesthetic things technical work organizational work um shared use policies related to the project all of that's been going on in the background as well but parking was something that's been mentioned by other groups wanting to make sure that all of their needs will be met. So in my conversation with
director Ellis we talked a lot about the need for a parking lot layout that's going to benefit everyone. I got information from everyone about their general parking needs, delivery zones, staff parking, volunteer parking, mart drop offs, handicap spaces, anything we
can think of. Designated winter parking for vehicles that are going to be there over the weekends and at night. That was something that um city engineer Rob Oliva and I talked about as well as director uh Dane Arnold and it was a really good thing that they pointed out as well. And so, uh, Rob Oliver, our city engineer, is working to tweak and
and adjust if necessary the layout he's been working on. Um, that will, I think, provide plenty of parking, plenty of delivery zones, accommodate, you know, the tractor trailer the CAC uses for the Christmas gifts, regular drop offs, delivery trucks, uh, and everything they
need. So, there's a lot of work that has been done. There's a lot of work still to go, but I'm really happy to see that progress is taking place. the and with and through my process that I'm updating you all the mayor um and we've been able to work on things quickly and we're starting to have these conversations
with the tenants prospective tenants to make sure that they're all hearing from one another as well. Um so I think communication's definitely improving and I and I' I've been pleased to see the work rate improve as well. Thank you. Um with that I would move to place this on file as well. >> Second motion made by councelor
Hegeland, second by councelor Heath to place the update on file. Is there discussion? All those in favor? I. >> All those opposed, no. Motion passes. Like to thank the council for their uh flexibility this evening. And I think
now we are ready for item 11551. [Music] Item 11551, a measure confirming the mayor's appointment of Russell Counts to the position of police officer. >> Councelor Heath. >> Thank you, President Tyros. The appointments committee unanimously voted to move the appointment to the full city
council uh to be certified. >> Motion made by councelor Heath, second by councelor Heglin to confirm the mayor's appointment. Is there discussion? >> All those in council, >> I'm sorry. Um yes. So, the committee met with the mayor along with Chief Mcavee,
along with Officer Russell Counts. Um, Officer Counts comes to Garner Police with 14 years of policing experience as an officer from Jupiter, Florida. Um, with 14 Oh, I'm sorry. He has recently moved locally and has quickly adopted to
the I'll do air quotations, uh, Northern Policing, as he has said during the meeting, um, of the Gardener Police Department. I would like to note that this is the first hire of the gardener PD since the city of gardener has chosen to do away with the civil service uh
process. Officer Council comes along with high praises from the chief along with fellow officers. >> Thank you, Councelor Heath. Is there further discussion? All those in favor I. >> All those opposed, no. Motion passes.
We'll now take a brief recess so that officer counts may be uh administered the oath of office by the clerk. raise your hands and repeat after me. I state your name. >> I whistle counts >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I rever truth, faith, and allegiance
>> that it rever faith and allegiance >> to the United States of America >> to the United States of America >> and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts >> in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And we'll support the Constitution. >> And we'll support the Constitution >> and the law thereof. >> And the law zeroations.
Now, back in order, finance committee item 11539, an ordinance to amend the city of Gardner, chapter 8, thereof entitled personnel to replace attachment one, schedule E, thereof entitled non-union compensation schedule. Members of the
council, regarding agenda item 11539, I will recuse myself from participation due to the appearance of a conflict of interest. And as I've previously disclosed, this relates to a personal relationship with a member of my family who is also one of the non-UN personnel members affected by this ordinance.
Therefore, I will be stepping down from the chair and excusing myself from this matter. [Music] Okay. In recuse of president Tyrros and in the recuse of president Tyros order business of elections for president prompus evening September 2nd 2025. At
this time I open the floors for nomination president councel Donalds. >> Thank you madam clerk. I'd like to nominate councelor Greg Cormier second. Okay. >> Move to close nominations. >> Second. >> Motion made by
councelor DL. Seconded by councelor president. Sorry, councelor Kazinskus to close the nominations. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Those oppose say nay. >> Motion carries. At this time we'll call the members and let me know what name
you put out. Councelor Brooks, >> Councelor Craig Cormier, >> Councelor Craig Cormier, >> Councelor Cormier, >> Council Dawwards, >> Councelor Craig Cormier, >> Council Heath, >> Council Craig Cormier, >> Council Hegund, >> Councelor Craig Cormier,
>> Council Kazinskus, >> Councelor Craig Cormier, Council Matt, >> Councelor Craig Cormier, >> Council Tio, >> Councelor Craig Cormier, >> and Council Tony, >> Councelor Craig Cormier. So I have nine votes for council Craig
B. Craig B. You are now president. Item 11539 ordinance to amend the city of gardener chapter 8 there entitled personnel to replace attachment one schedule E thereof entitled non-union compensation schedule. Do a report from the finance committee. Councor.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I apologize. I know this is is going to take a bit. And so, to begin, I move to suspend rule five for the duration of discussion on this item. >> Second. >> Motion by councelor Hegund, second by councelor Kazinskus to suspend rule
five. Discussion on the motion. Can >> they ask what rule five is? >> Councelor. Uh this is the rule that would allow uh any of us to speak more than twice and for more than five minutes and is my hope to give a a pretty thorough presentation and background on this.
>> Thank you. >> Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Council ag. >> Thank you. Uh so the finance committee did meet on this last week and I want to
start by explaining the procedure from the finance committee. So during our discussion on the mayor's salary adjustment proposal, I offered an amendment to replace the mayor's version with the new version that I had developed. That amendment was accepted and the finance committee voted to refer that item to the whole council. So that
new draft of this item is what is before us now for debate. The mayor's version is in our packet for reference only. Uh but the item as it stands is this version that was voted on by the finance committee. Next, I want to cover an issue that we discussed at finance, but unfortunately was not able to be resolved until after
the packet was put together. At the meeting, councelor Dernowitz asked for clarification on how the police chief, the deputy police chief, and the fire chief salaries were built in the budget. We're able to get some information right away in that meeting, but there was still some confusion, and it wasn't until late Thursday evening that I
received the clarified information I needed. It concerned the way the education incentive for those positions works. Because those incentives are calculated by taking a percentage of the base pay, it obviously really matters which number is considered the base pay. If we set the base pay on a number that
actually already included the incentive pay would be inadvertently giving a pretty substantial salary adjustment. So I want to apologize for that confusion and the issues I know that caused. My intention was not to offend or slighten one and it certainly was not my intention to gut the salaries of those positions and I'll be offering an
amendment that I believe corrects this error. I know before I go on after working in great detail on this, there is work we needed to do in the ordinances or at least how they are made available and the budget to improve clarity and transparency. So what are my intentions? Why did I do
this? What did we discuss and leading to emotion with this? Before I started working on this, I spoke with former counselor about what I was thinking. They advised me at that time not to do anything that I wouldn't be able to make everyone happy and that I would make some people very unhappy. This is a story we're familiar with because 20
years ago was the last time this has really been looked at. And I can confirm unfortunately that they were right as people on this list let me know how upset they were. And not to paint with a broad brush. I also want to thank the people impacted by this who reached out though to offer points and have good
respectful discussions with me. It really was appreciated. However, after the meeting where we discussed this, it was clear to me that the mayor's proposal would really struggle to get enough votes to pass. I know I couldn't vote for it. Based on the comments and concerns raised by other counselors, it was clear that there was enough doubt
and concern amongst the council and that it would most likely fail. I really didn't want to see that happen. I and I've said a few times, I really am committed to getting something done here. It's long overdue. And we do have a problem with these positions being underpaid. It's causing turnover. It's
making it harder to attract applicants. And that costs us money and just as importantly, costs us opportunities. But again, I didn't want to see anything not get done. That's really what's happened in the past. We get to this point, it doesn't get done. We settle on a cola and maybe once in a while a position is singled out for an
adjustment. That's how kicking the can down the road for 20 years has gotten to this point. Maybe I'm wrong and counselors do want to improve the mayor's package. If that's the case, amend it back in. Vote it through without me. But it didn't feel like I should criticize and vote no without offering an alternative. And most
importantly, I didn't want the end result to be that nothing got done. I'm choosing my words carefully because I'm really not trying to kick any dirt around. It's just how this process goes. Most counselors have voiced concerns, asked critical questions, pointed out errors. Uh these are again things that
were came up in our meeting. Uh her proposal that was before the finance committee last week was almost identical to the one first presented to us in June. Again, I know I've harped on this being the English teacher, but there was even still a question mark in the grid that had pointed a few times by then. And I
think to some degree those things do erode confidence. So my goal was to take this into account the concerns and questions raised by counselors increase the amount of oversight the council will have with this process going forward. And I want to start by explaining the changes I'm proposing to the salary grid
like I did at the meeting if you didn't get a chance to watch it. A top concern voiced by counselors that I thought was the affordability of this proposal. This version is less expensive. I'm also proposing changes to the mechanisms in the grid. First, it groups employees
based on a few factors, their role and whether they require council confirmation. I also drew heavily on the salary study data to make these groups. Next, I changed the schedule of salary rate increases based on the characteristics of these groups. This
was primarily based on the data in the salary study. I also took into account whether a salary had more recently been adjusted and why, or whether that position had substantially changed since the study was completed. For the employees subject to council confirmation, I set the steps at 3 years
except for the last step which goes from 15 to 20 years. This makes sure that the council will have an opportunity to review an appointment in between someone going to the next step. I do want to offer clarification too that that doesn't mean their salary would be tied to that timeline. It would still be tied
to their start date. This reflects another concern voiced by counselors and showing a level of cons council oversight is put into any new system. As we know in our current system any changes to ordinance require council approval and I wanted to keep some measure of that. Another question I
received um from employees and from you know and we talked about at the meeting is the threeear step and when they'll advance relative to their appointment schedule. I mentioned this a moment ago. You will advance to the next step based on your time and service so long as your appointment is not expired. It will be
entirely common for employees subject to council confirmation to advance to the next salary step in the middle of their appointment term. The purpose of the three-year steps is not to hold someone back in between appointments, but to give the council the opportunity to review that appointment sometime before the next salary step.
Another important question, uh just like the current ordinance or the mayor's proposal, if it does not explicitly state that it covers a portion of your compensation, it does not cover it. So for example, some employees on this list receive a clothing allowance that's covered by a separate ordinance. This
does not impact them. Also, some employees receive a separate siphon for additional duties. This does not impact them. Although it is something we should review as well separately to ensure that those have kept up, I think with the times the one example of something that is explicitly covered again is the
education incentives. They're not governed by this ordinance, but I've explicitly calculated them here to address the situation that led to the confusion I discussed earlier. For non-counsel confirmed employees who are not department heads, I'm suggesting the more standard 2% longevity base
salary increase every other year. This aligns much more with the standard step structures currently in place throughout the city. These changes combined with adjustments to the salary starting salaries are the sources of the savings. To be clear, the current salaries of all personnel in this ordinance are
receiving a positive salary adjustment. Let me say that again. Everyone, all the personnel in this proposed ordinance are going to receive a positive salary adjustment and will be placed on a step structure to ensure a future adjustment with tenure. The salary grid in front of us does not
cover everyone in the current ordinance. And I want to explain why as I did the finance committee and how I propose we address that. All those positions are from the library and golf course. They have separate governance bodies that I think we need to consult to make sure that we what we are approving accurately takes into account the unique
circumstances of those departments. I'm also concerned that there may be serious issues with what was proposed and why I'm suggesting we exercise caution and take more time to work on those details. For example, the position of golf pro manager. It was ade it was wasn't adequately addressed by the salary
study. It stood out to me because it was one of the highest percentage increases in the mayor's proposal. It also stood out to me because in the current ordinance, it's listed as a weekly salary, not an annual salary. And I think that's where some of that disconnect starts to come in. The current ordinance lists the salary as
$1,200.95 weekly. If you multiply that by 52 weeks, you get 62,000, which I think might be what the new number was based on. However, I learned from the golf commission that the golf pro manager is only paid for 40 weeks week weeks a year
for $48,000. They also keep the profits from the pro shop at the golf course as part of the deal. So the $70,000 salary proposed by the mayor's package is a very very substantial increase of over 60%. I'm not sure if that was intentional or
an oversight, but it should give us pause and why I think we should study from those departments further before we approve a salary adjustment package that covers them. Which leads me to the reddraft of the ordinance language itself that came up in the finance committee meeting. The first thing I seek to correct is the
issue of positions left being left out. Because I'm not sure if that issue, positions being left out, have been triple checked and dealt with, my proposal overrides but does not replace the current exhibit schedule as a safeguard against any position being erroneously left out. The biggest change
I'm proposing to the ordinance language is allowing for credit for prior service. I think this addresses the retention issue across all city departments as it does not inhibit career advancement and incentivizes people building new skills and staying in garden. There's a real benefit for us
to have employees cross trainined with experience in different areas of city government. A real example that I gave at the finance committee meeting and I want to give again is one that benefited us last year when there was problems in the community development department. We had two prior employees of that department that still work for the city
step up and help fix some reporting and accounting issues. This was really important. I think it probably saved us money and definitely saved grant opportunities. So, I think the system I proposed in section two and section six are fair and will still give us flexibility to
recruit and retain qualified candidates. It also gives the council a check to make sure the system is running as we intend it and there are more eyes on it. I also took into account a point made by councelor Brooks concerning the awarding of steps. I think what I've proposed
eliminates that concern and gives us more flexibility and should simplify the system. Instead of granting people steps, this sets up a system where we can recognize prior service and experience by awarding years towards those steps. For example, we have a
clerk and an assistant clerk. Under the system, if the assistant clerk stays for five years and were to become city clerk, they would be eligible to see receive credit years that would start them in step one instead of start the starting salary. I believe the way I
proposed this system puts in place responsible guardrails, checks, and balances and is a fair and affordable way for us to incentivize people sticking around. Again, there's a tangible benefit for the city, and we should recognize that. It's also important to note that this system creates eligibility, not a guarantee.
Uh, councelor Tosone had mentioned about things being earned when we talked about this a while back and it gives the council, I think, final say. It'll also give us more ability to attract qualified and experienced candidates from outside of the city by allowing more flexibility in starving salary commencement with skill level and
experience. Section six specifically addresses how we could apply this to existing employees as a one-time adjustment for implementation. And I'm going to go through a few different sections now if you happen to have them in front of you and want to follow along.
Section seven uh makes these salary adjustments retroactive to the beginning of the fiscal year this fiscal year. Section 8 prevents a loophole where an expired appointee could receive a raise by this system.
Section 9, I think, is important. One of the chief reasons this has been such a daunting task this year is that it's been put off and put off for many years at this point. This section commits the council to regular periodic reviews of the proposed salary grid. The reality is that over time these positions do
change. laws and ordinances add or change duties and other factors we cannot predict also have an impact. So this mandate will make sure that there is at least the opportunity on a regular basis for further adjustments. It reduces the issue of favoritism we've discussed and voiced an interest in
curb. It also eliminates the issues of shy employees getting overlooked or positions that may be further from our usual view getting left out. I also want to address here the most frequent question I received um and and should have come up in our meeting um but did not. This section has nothing to
do with colas whatsoever. This grid has nothing to do with colas. This ordinance and the ordinance it replaces have nothing to do with colas. It will as it always has been up to the mayor to determine what if any cola will be proposed in a given budget year. So we can do colas annually if that comes to
us. this does not prevent that from happening. Um, I just want to make sure that was clear because I know that was a point of concern. The other thing I'm hoping this will correct is the process. I've heard and I agree with a lot of the frustration that's been expressed in general with this process. The bottom line is I think
we have room for improvement and this will help make sure that happens. Section 10. I added this because this is a new system. I think it's important for us to have a check-in to make sure it's working and working as we intended and if need be
discuss issues and changes. Uh, a few more things I want to address and I do promise I'm coming to a close and a motion. I've seen a spreadsheet circulating that purports to show the individual salaries as a result of this proposal. I've looked at it and I don't think it's entirely accurate. Especially
I don't think it takes into account the prior service credits which I think is a major component of this proposal. Um to our department heads and our other employees covered by this proposal. I know this is not everything you wanted, but I think under the circumstances and especially with the budget constraints we always face. This is something we can
afford to do and do now. I'll add that, you know, for me it is always easier to go and add money, it is a lot harder to cut and reduce. And so I think where this is such a big deviation from our current system, starting small but still granting increases is important. I also
spoke with the mayor yesterday and if this is approved for first printing, I'll work with him to quickly develop a detailed list of where current employees will fall on this grid just in case he has any questions into my thinking and take into account the provisions of the ordinance. To my fellow counselors, I appreciate
the initial feedback from the members of the finance committee last week. There is no pride of authorship here and I welcome this council to move forward as it sees fit. But I ask that you keep this in mind as it was in the forefront of mine throughout this process. We need to be confident in our ability to afford this within our budget. I think the
reconfiguration I proposed gets us there. Um uh we don't want to be discussing overrides or service cuts or deferring capital improvements because we approved too big a package. Now, as a teacher, I can say I've seen other districts in that position and we are fortunate gardener has been smart in our
decision-m to the taxpayers. We need to address this problem. The peace meal approach that we previously used was too susceptible to favoritism. It didn't adequately reward employee contributions, especially over the long term, and didn't incentivize people to keep working for us. There are plenty of
examples of this causing turnover, costing us money, and degrading services. With that, I will stop there. I look forward to discussion, and I will make a motion to open up that discussion. I'll hold some amendments till later, so there's an opportunity to discuss the current proposal as it
stands, and another amendment until others have had time to talk. So with that, I would move to send to first printing. >> Second. >> Motion by councelor Heglin, second by councelor Mack to send the item to first printing. Uh is there a discussion on
the motion council? >> Just so I understand what we're discussing, the motion is to send the amended ordinance. And I I'm going to say that it's the Hegeland amendment
is now the ordinance and that's what that's what what's on the floor. >> Correct. Correct. What is on? >> Thank you. >> So discussion on the motion. >> Council Mac. Um, we have been given the difficult task of voting for a new economically
feasible salary ordinance with a step scale to acknowledge longevity which also includes cola interests increases that benefit everyone. There is no salary proposal or amendment that is going to make everybody happy. But we as a council have a responsibility to find a balanced
solution and to be fiscally accountable and protect the public's interest in our decisions. There is no question that the non-union salaries are in need of an increase. But the issue I have struggled with is how much we are approving an ordinance of salaries for non-union positions which
is different from negotiations which would happen in a union contract. During union contract negotiations which I have been part of for many years which this isn't. Employees have to be flexible and willing to be open-minded at the negotiating table. They have to be willing to give up contract language and
other benefits for salary increases as no one can expect to get everything that they want. It is a professional process in which both sides need to be respectful to each other as they disagree. I feel councelor Hegeland's amendment to me is the best ordinance.
It doesn't take away any from anyone. The salary increases a better a better balance with the city's finances. It does allow the pay increments with step scales and for the first time, this amendment to the to the ordinance would allow for people to get awarded credit for previous years in the city. It's a
way to reward people and also encourage retention of staff. This new proposal before us would require a review by FY28, but allows changes prior to that. Again, it also includes a colar annually in addition to the steps for years of service. I think
this gives people three years of protection. At our finance meeting, it was said that the average property uh real estate tax is $4,000 in gardener. If the increases for salary are too high, it could
potentially lead to future department cuts, not getting new staff, not getting new vehicles and equipment in order to fund this non-union salary ordinance. We have to find an affordable and conservative solution that will not compromise the city's services to the public and leave department with limited
finances. This self the self-started salary group and proposal the mayor's prop and the mayor's proposal were basically one and the same with different percentages for adjustments and step increases. What we receive never received as a city council was a presentation and explanation from the salary group to justify the
increases and how they derived to those as I had previously asked for many months ago. I believe back in January the major the mayor reduced the proposal from 8% to 4% across the board which in my opinion is still too expensive for the city to afford especially during
these financially uncertain times. We can move one of the proposals tonight to first printing as I believe we should move councelor Hegeland's um proposal. The other options that are before us are to just do a straight cost of living
increase for FY26 retroactive to July 1st and continue can continue to work on and draw this out further on a new salary step system. or the mayor could put forward a budget allocation for the raises prior to October 1st and he can continue to work on this process. As
part of this discussion, I would like to hear more from the mayor about his thoughts on councelor Heg Hegeland's amendment to the salary ordinance versus his proposal and where he stands on this item. It would help to hear from the mayor about his thoughts perspective based on the city's financial position.
Regardless of which proposal gets approved to go to first tint printing, it will still be subject to be edited through amendments and for further discussion. I will support what is fair to the employees, but more importantly, I will support what's best in the in the best financial interest of the city.
Thank you, >> councelor. Councelor Gazinskus. >> Thank you, President Cormier. First, I want to thank councelor Duralowitz, councelor Mack, and councelor Huggland for their hard work on this issue in the finance committee,
and especially council Hegland for his initial proposal. I recognize the complexity of this process and the effort that has gone into crafting a more measured alternative to the mayor's proposal. And for the public watching this evening and to put into perspective the history of
how we got here today, the mayor's proposal was in consultation with a working group made up of a group of city hall department heads. Moving forward, I will refer to that proposal as the mayor's proposal. The mayor's proposal has been before the city council since June 2nd, and since
then, the city council received over approximately 700 pages of material to review. The council then met again on August 18th which allowed us time to review the material provided. His proposal was referred to the finance committee which met on August 27th to
further study and review the proposal. Councelor Hegeland then presented a proposal based off the information that the council had received and the finance and feedback as well. And the finance committee then recommended that the city council consider Councelor Hegund's proposal. With that said, I have
concerns with the mayor's proposal, and I have voiced some of them before, both in terms of its affordability and sustainability over the long term. There are simply too many unresolved issues for me to support it in its current form. I cannot vote for it, and I would
urge my colleagues on this council not to vote for it either, and here's why. I found aspects of the mayor's plan a little troubling. questions still remain like as councelor Pegland had mentioned today um and previously the significant raise for the golf pro manager as an
example that was raised during the finance committee meeting. We still don't have clarity on whether that was an error or not and the fact that issues like that are still surfacing at this stage is a red flag to me. Another major concern is the process itself. The council asked early on for detailed cost
projections, but what we received didn't inspire any confidence, and a comprehensive cost analysis should have been included from the start. With the mayor's proposal, the city council is being asked to implement a significant change to the city's
compensation system. And while I completely understand the desire to move forward and support that, I believe we must do so responsibly. And I do think that that was the intent of the working group of the mayor and also of the city council. One of the most concerning
aspects for me of the mayor's proposal is the potential long-term financial risk. If we adopt something unsustainable today, 5 years from now, we could be facing a Prop 2 and a half override just to keep the city afloat financially. Overrides rarely pass, and
history supports that. In 2018, for example, the city of Gardner did not pass a Prop 2 and a half override to support its public schools, and significant cuts followed. Do we really believe an override will pass to cover raises we may not be able to afford? I don't believe so. The finance
committee's proposal offers a more fiscally responsible alternative. It saves approximately $150,000 in the first year and nearly a million dollar over 10 years compared to the mayor's plan. While no projections are ever perfect, this path gives us much more flexibility and room to adapt if
necessary. One of the best things in councelor Hegland's proposal that the finance committee referred is the establishment of a regular salary review schedule. That's how this entire process started two years ago when the mayor proposed selective raises. Council the
council raised concerns about fairness and that led to the broader salary study. A consistent review timeline will help us avoid these large reactive changes every 20 plus years. It may not mean every position needs an adjustment every time, but it will allow us to
catch issues early and budget more responsibly. Maybe the finance committee's proposal is being too conservative and too fiscally responsible. But I'd rather heir on the side of caution than promise salaries that we can't pay and spend money that we don't have. I feel like
this is the point in the process where city councils in the past would throw their hands up and vote for a cola and the issue would be to be continued for 20 plus years. I urge this council not to do that this time. We are at the point where we can make a decision and
move this 20 plus year conversation into an action. It's important to remind those affected by these salary increases which I think councelor he did a really good job of of just now is that there are still colas along the way. That was a question I had for counselor Hegeland after the finance committee meeting. He
cleared up some confusion for me because I wasn't sure I really understood how these um raises and how these increases went along. And so I gave him literal examples of specific positions and said, "Okay, so this person with this much experience and this many years that they
put in, what does that mean?" And he reminded me of the colas along the way. And that to me left a lot of room um down the road that we have um that I didn't I didn't think initially from the presentation um from watching the finance committee meeting and it wasn't
that it wasn't presented. It was that I just needed to understand and ask those questions. So I appreciated the clarification on that and I appreciate the clarification this evening as well. If this is done in a way that is not sustainable, then a future council cannot award colas and at the very least
can make pay cuts, eliminate position, free salaries and free services or cut services. The finance committee's version is not the finish line. It's the starting point. I do believe what the mayor's proposal was also a starting
point and started the conversation and I appreciate that. I appreciate all the work that it went into it and I appreciate the intent behind it as well. I think we're all on the same page that this is well overdue and it needs to get done in a thoughtful way. I don't think this process has been the cleanest. I don't think it's been uh the most
organized, but I do think the effort is there and I do think the good intention is there. This allows us to make meaningful process while still I'm sorry, meaningful progress while still being cautious. To be clear, I support fair
compensation, but we must balance that with fiscal responsibility. If we're wrong, we can correct course in the future. And as councelor Hland had said earlier, it's much different when you have to cut down the road than it is when you at from the very beginning when
you set a realistic outlook for the future. This this proposal, meaning the finance committee's proposal, gives us a solid starting point at this point. It allows us to take action without putting the city's financial stability at risk. We also have a responsibility to
taxpayers to make sure what we approve is sustainable. The fiscally responsible thing to do right now is to move forward with modest, reasonable raises. The finance committee's proposal does that. If we find we need to adjust further, we can do so next year or during the next
review in three years. We can do through we can do so through colas. I urge this council to support the finance committee's recommendation. Thank you. >> Thank you, council. Council general Alex. >> Thank you, councelor Cormier. Um,
appreciate the explanations again and further elaborations from councelor Heglund, comments from councelor Mack, councelor Kazinskus. Um, this is something that previous councils as mentioned has shared over the years and just um, as councelor Kasinskus put it
in front of up their hands and given a cola. Um I don't think we were we were never going to make every everyone happy and I know the mayor's um as referred to as the mayor's plan that we had wasn't making everyone happy either. Um this is
a major step forward. Um and this does place a framework that we can use uh to build upon going forward. Um this is an entirely new um new system at least to the city guardra in these type for these type of roles. Um I as mentioned by council
Hegeland I think u he's going to address those um he had mentioned the fire chief the deputy um uh the police chief the deputy police chief um and I had concerns um about the compensation there and how it was calculated and that we
were doing it correctly. Um and it seems there corrections need to be made. Um I'm looking forward to seeing what those are. But um you know, barring any um issues I I had with those, I this is something I'm going to be in support of,
um I think it's it's something that is a a giant step forward. Um and something um that as always we can improve upon going forward. Councelor Cassins mentioned this is back before us every year. it's built into the ordinance that we need to um review it um on a specific
date in section um in section 9 as well um in a specific fiscal year. Um so I hope um the other counselors um will follow suit and be in support as well. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor.
Further discussion? >> Councelor Brooks. >> Uh thank you Mr. President. Uh, I would first like to commend my my uh nextdoor neighbor here, Councelor Hegel, for the time and effort he has put into writing
his amendment. It's not easy work to do and and I recognize the work he's put into it. As we move ahead on this discussion, we must not forget that we are talking publicly about the salaries of people who work for us.
In the case of department heads, we are talking about the people who manage the work of the city, who face the public day after day and who assist us when we or a constituent has a problem. We have ratified many labor contracts after careful review and have never blinked at
the added money these contract settlements have cost. Let's make sure we don't send the wrong signal to our own managers. After reading, and I'm calling it the Hegeland amendment because that's how it was titled. Others have called it the Hegeland proposal. We're talking about
the same thing. After having read it a couple times, I put it next to the mayor's original proposed salary ordinance for comparison. The first thing I noticed is that the mayor's proposal clearly states that steps are based on years an employee has
been in the position and not years of service with the city. Whereas the Hegeland proposal in section two does not establish a clear starting point but immediately allows the mayor to consider years of service with the city or with another employer when establishing the
initial step. The Hegland proposal does not seem to differentiate years in a position from longevity with the city. It also gives the mayor great discretion in setting the initial step for a new hire. Although these hirings would
require city council approval, I do not foresee us as city council being too good a backstopping. Are we really going to say no to the mayor when he makes the request to start a new employee at a higher step?
The Headlin amendment or proposal also stops automatic step increases if an employes appointment has expired. In my opinion, that is unfair to the employee because they do not have control over the appointment process. Control rests with the mayor and with
city council. An inefficient mayor or city council could delay appointments, thereby delaying a step increase. While these employees will eventually get a retroactive step increase, I ask, is it fair to tell the employees to wait for their money?
The Hegeland proposal section six determines the step for current employees and like section two considers both years in the position years with the city. As stated earlier, they are not the same and combining them may result in the perception the process is
unfair. The formula and formula for calculating that credited time to me is also unnecessarily complicated. [Applause] The Headland proposal in section 9 requires a review of the salary grid
every three years. Aren't we going to be reviewing the salary grid annually when making cola adjustments? In section seven, it requires the mayor to report on implementation of this ordinance by January 1st of 2026.
I feel that this mayor has been good about keeping city council informed about ongoing city issues. Do we really need to compel him to submit a report? We need to be careful about overstepping our responsibilities in getting involved
or too involved in executive functions. Uh councelor Hegland has mentioned that his uh grid does not include all the positions um and it is also working with different assumptions about starting pays and steps.
I assume that the city would and he has said that the city's intent would be to address positions not covered by the grid at a later date. As you may have gathered by my comments, I am not going to support the Hegeland proposal. In my opinion, it is too
complicated, bureaucratic, misses the distinction between time in the position and time with the city, and allows about every step determination to be an exception subject to city council approval. My preference is to support the mayor's
original proposal with amendments clarifying when future step increases would occur and allowing the mayor subject to council approval to hire at a step commenurate with the applicant's education training and experience similar to the amendment that councelor
Hedgedland had proposed near the beginning of this process. Uh I do have a have copies of what I am proposing and also a chart showing the net salary increase at 15 years uh for the mayor's proposal compared to other
city labor contracts. Um if possible I would ask for a short recess to allow my fellow counselors to review the information after which I would like to retain the floor in order to further explain what what my proposal would be.
If there's no objection, >> I just I just have a point of order. The uh what we're we're doing is we're discussing um we have >> uh printing for uh councelor Hegeland's amendment. The mayor's amendment isn't
before us, nor is it is it up for discussion right now. So, I'm just looking for a point of order if this is appropriate. Uh, I will defer to councelor Mack that we will hold on discussing the mayor's proposal and anyone the mayor's proposal
at this time as the item on the floor is the hegel amendment. Okay. Thank you. Um, in that case I I mean I realize that I could move to amend the headline amendment to return it back to the
mayor's proposal, but I will defer it. you. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> I'll I'll do it. >> Yeah. Second. >> Okay. So, I would I move that that we go back to the mayor's if that's allowed. And what I will say then is that I will
when I'm finished, I will withdraw my motion. I can do that. Uh right now there's a motion by councelor Brooks, second by councelor Tibo Munes to return to the original proposal by the mayor. Is there
discussion on this motion? >> Can may I pass this out? Ask for recess. >> I I still uh president prom I still have a I still have a point of order on this. Um, I don't we still have to vote on the
motion that's before us, I believe. I don't and the city clerk can clarify this, but I don't think we I don't think an an amendment to go back to a proposal that's not before us is still appropriate. Um, so I just want
clarification that we're doing this in the in the appropriate order because I think we would have to vote on the current motion in front of us before we can reconsider cuz we haven't approved or disapproved it before we can consider another proposal. That's just my clear
my um point when Robert rules. I think you have to go with the motion that's on the table. Um and and if I believe the councelor could amend the current motion that's on the table, I don't believe he can if he has amendments to council he's
uh amendment that would be appropriate. I don't think bringing back a proposal that's not not before us is is by Robert rules. Thank you. >> And and and I'm willing to withdraw it if if >> do you have any clarification to your amendment?
>> I'm sorry. Do you have any clarification or changes to your amendment that you currently have on the floor? >> Do I have an amendment on the floor? >> You've proposed an amendment which has been >> I proposed replacing the current amendment with a different amendment.
Yes. If if this is going to create consternation among the council, I'm not that's not my goal. I'm just trying to get information out the best way I can. But I can I will withdraw the motion if that's the sense of the council. >> Council Aglin.
>> Thank you, Mr. President. Um if I may, if if we want, we could take a recess for you and the clerk to confer if you would like and then we could come back and see what your what your thoughts are on the current situation before we make any decision or before the counselor withdraws anything.
>> Before we do that, can you just restate your amendment that is currently on the floor? So the amendment the the the motion that I would make is to amend the motion on the floor by removing I guess I would say removing it in full and replacing it with a different motion
or a different amendment that I have here that I would like to hand out. We'll take a brief recess. meeting is back in session. Uh currently we have a motion on the floor by councelor Heglund, the Hegeland
amendment. Uh we have a motion by councelor uh Brooks to amend councelor hegland's proposal by striking it completely and replacing it with a proposal he has um that has been seconded by councelor
tibo's. So there will currently be discussion on councelor Brooks's amendment which is to clarify to strike the proposal on the floor and replace it with what he has in front of him.
>> Okay, >> we will take a brief recess. >> Thank you. I would appreciate a brief recess just to pass this information. We'll take a brief recess to allow councelor Brooks to hand this out. Thank you. Currently, we have councelor Brooks's amendment to
strike the language of council Heglland's amendment and replace it with the amendment before the council. Now, second by councelor Tibo Munz, is there discussion on this motion? >> Council Brooks. >> Yes. Thank you. So just just to talk
about what what I presented here, it's starting with the mayor's proposal. Uh section two, he talks about uh step determination based on years of position rather than years of ser
service with the city. Section three is if someone is promoted internally. Section four if somebody's demoted internally. Section five is when a step rate is effective and the bold is is the changes that I'm suggesting for the
mayor's proposal and that just says that future step increases will take place when the appropriate number of years between steps has been completed. There had been no mention of that in in previous and that in my experience is could be a bon could be an issue. Some
people looking at it and saying, "Well, you got to be here for five years to get to the fiveyear step." And other people saying, "Well, I started on a three-year step, so I only need to be here two years." Either one can be right. This is just saying it it would be the difference in the in the years on this
step rather than five years. Section six um was originally in the proposal allowing the mayor to hire at uh step two instead of step one. I added language to say it's subject to city
council notification. So we would be aware that he'd done that. And then uh the next paragraph is in line with one of the suggestions made by councelor Heglin at the beginning allowing a hire to be again at a higher step than two uh
if the mayor agrees that the employees education training and experience bring them up to a higher step. And again future step increases are when when they cross a number of years between steps. My notes just talk about
a couple of options with this. Uh if the council wanted to have all uh out of all hires other than step one subject to council confirmation, then we don't need the first paragraph. You can just include
that as everybody. Um there was also some language in the original stuff that talked about it being for department heads and not all employees and that could be another piece of discussion. Uh this this is basically allowing any employee to be
hired at different steps. And lastly on section two the original language was uh effective upon passage and publication is required by law. My concern is that I think it should be for July 1. I'm not sure that's correct, but that that could
be uh addressed. Similarly, uh the other paper that I handed out had to do with what the net increase at the 15-year step was based on the grid that the mayor had presented in the mayor's proposal. By the time an employee gets to step 15, they basically have a 22%
increase in their pay. That's compared to other contracts with the city. City Hall employees are the ask me contract is about 30%. public works employees about 24%. Uh patrolmen are high at 50% but there
there's a big increase between step two and three and I think that's when they become fully uh certified or sworn or whatever they are as officers. Um and then there were three for the school unions which I realize this we don't
really have any control in but it's just there for information. um that this is what I wanted to get out. At this point, I am uh requesting uh permission, I guess, to withdraw my motion.
>> There's no objection. The counselor withdraws his motion. >> Second. >> Motion is withdrawn. >> Second. Thank you. Back to initial uh motion on the floor proposed by councelor Hegeland. Uh,
is there further discussion on this motion? Council Hegel. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, and and thank you to my fellow counselor as well for the work you put into that. I think it just shows how seriously we're all taking this and how committed we are to making something happen. So, I I
appreciate that. Um, before I move into the amendments, if there's no objection, just a couple of things I was I was thinking about um during the last discussion. Um, I know there might not be necessarily a distinction between current position and
years of service. It was my hope to include both. As simple as that. I think and it clearly states in section six the total number of years in the current position. I tried to keep some of that spirit of the original proposal from the mayor. Um, with adding in the addition
of those other years of experience, uh, I also wanted to take mention with the council confirmation. Um, I thought that might come up and and so in here in section 8, if confirmation is later conferred by the city council, the employee may receive retroactive salary owed from the appointment expiration
date forward if separately approved by the city council. Um, so there's not necessarily any chance that a late appointment would impact any raises, salary adjustments, colas, etc. Um, I just want to make sure I clear and it was something I thought of as I was
reading re rereading my stuff um and thinking of other concerns that might come up. Uh, it is not my intention with this language that anyone would necessarily be punished or have to start over. Um, with section 9, um,
while yes, we can take up colas every year, really that language of the three years is to ensure something happens. We could review everything every year if we so choose. This is really up to the council with our authority. Um however, I just wanted to make sure that there was not only colas but additional
checkpoints and safeguards to improve to ensure that this was done. Um and while I understand that this mayor has been wonderful, this mayor may not be mayor forever uh should he choose to move on. And so I'm setting up protections for future situations where we may not have
a mayor as wonderful as this mayor has been in communicating to the council. I think it's important to remember it's not always the person, it's the physician. Um, it's the concept and it's the possibilities that may come down the line. Um, I also would be interested in hearing from the mayor. I know one of our counselors mentioned that. Um, so if
there would be no objection, I would be curious to hear um from him as well through the chair. Any objections, Mr. Mayor? >> Uh, thank you very much, Mr. President Prom and uh counselors for your time and attention to all of this since it was
first submitted uh to where it's gotten now. Uh I think a lot of the you know from sitting here and hearing the questions and feedback that was given I think a lot of it's uh valid points that have been made. Uh I think there's a lot of good um ideas that have been shared. Uh moving forward with all of this. Uh
just to respond um the main goal in the end from the proposal that I submitted to what councelor Heglin has submitted and so on from there is that um and I believe councelor Kazinskus and councelor Mack both echoed this sentiment as well is that there's something that just needs to be done with the system for uh the last time a
pay adjustment was made in our non-union staff members and I do want to just stress the non-union is uh between the department heads and the other staff members that we have this is a total of about 76 employees that we're dealing with here um was in 2004 for and prior to that, it was about 20 years before
that. And it really has been something that has been cyclical that every 20 years, we get to a point where we've got our backs up against the wall and we have to figure out what do we have to do to keep our employees here as well as maintain our competit compatibility in the employment market. It's one of the same reasons that uh the administration
proposed the uh adjustment to the uh article one uh language last year in the legislative ordinances uh to make it so that our uh benefits for our employees were still as competitive uh in the job market as it was other places. Uh our non-UN employees, our department heads
and our staff do tremendous dedicated work each and every day for our employees. um the uh institutional knowledge, the expertise uh and the just general work ethic that they bring in every day um is something that should
be recognized and commended and that's why I think we're at that time and it's been the 20 years and it's time to just change it. However, the overall goal that we have
is to put in the steps scale system. And I think that that's where we need to be in the end. Far far far far too many times in the last more than 20 years cuz this happened long before the last salary adjustment had the positions were made on one-off adjustments. I mentioned
this in the last informal meeting that we had where the two lowest paid department heads that we have the council on aging director and the uh veterans director the prior individuals who held those had them for 25 plus years and it made it so that since there
wasn't that turnover that position didn't get looked at. Uh this having that step scale scale involved in it adds that lexra level and takes out the subjectivity and adds the objectivity in there. Uh, so I think that the proposal that's on the floor is certainly
workable with us. I think councelor Hegman and I have already talked about ways that in between first and second printing, we can work to address some of those concerns that may still be there, but also work to see where our employees currently fall so we have a more accurate representation of where they uh compare uh with each other. Um,
particularly now that there's uh changes that are being made to correct those errors that were in the first version of that. Um uh the uh you know some things that come to mind on my end from the notes that I was taking while sitting here um involve
the um the review uh where this is a full comprehensive change to the system not just a mere ordinance amendment that we have where we're making something new rather than uh amending an existing system where it just says this position this pay that's it. um is, you know, do
we do the full 3 years as a long-term thing, but do we add something in the more short term to see how things are going before the next fiscal year? Now, that's something that can be happen through regular budget process because it's an ordinance that can be amended at any time at the pledge of the council. Um, but that's certainly something to take a look at the way that a cost of
living adjustment would impact the step scale because at that point in time, you're not infecting a specific number, but actually a full grid of numbers and seeing how that overall uh would go in that way. Um and then as well as you know uh one of the concerns that I originally had that you know you've addressed this evening is finding the
right place to place our current employees uh who have been with us who have previous years of service either in position with the city but if someone's in position you know we do have some department heads who have worked their way up the ranks and have been here for 30 years. Uh so that may put them at a
different location as well on the grid. Uh so just making sure we're taking into account all of those things that are there or if we get an applicant who worked in a similar field in a different community or in the private sector and now is coming to see do we is there a way to look into all of those things. Um
but I don't think any ordinance proposal is going to address all of those in the best way right away and at some point in time we just need to get the system in place. Uh and so uh I'm certainly more than willing to work uh with the council and council Hegeland as we've already talked about through those concerns if this does go to first printing uh this
evening uh to make sure that all of those are addressed before it goes to second printing. Uh and in the end the administration's uh willing to work with any proposal that we have uh that acknowledges uh the work that our non-union employees are doing each and every day which um is the goal of all of us in the end and I think that's what
everyone has said here in the end too. So, um, I hope that answers your question, counselor, and if there's more that you have, I'm happy to answer those, too. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Further discussion on the item on the floor,
Council Heckler. >> Thank you, Mr. President. With that, um, it it seems like this might be a good time to put forth some of the corrective amendments I had mentioned. Um, there's really just two. One that I'll pass around is the fixes to the police chief,
deputy police chief, and the fire chief. Um, the numbers you'll see include a bachelor's and masters level for each position. Um, while associates do are included in the Quinn bill, the city of Gardner does look for a bachelor's as a minimum for those positions. And so I
built out the two lines. You'll see the bachelor's row, the master's row, and that would be this um education incentive on top of the base. So they are both rolled in here whereas the holiday pay or the clothing allowance would go on top of these things and
these numbers that you'll see. Uh additionally uh looking at my other amendment in section one section six subsection one I would be looking to strike that subdivision in its entirety.
So that addresses the matter of, you know, employees hired before a certain date. Um, and looking at that 5-year minimum of experience, I think in order to maybe better be inclusive of all of our current employees, I essentially am
looking to remove that part um where an employee must have a minimum of 5 years of experience in prior positions to qualify for that current service addition. and that I simply take that out and anyone who's working for the city should have any time looked at um that they have with us as this is a big
change and and I don't want to set that minimum anymore. I think it's more appropriate to to give everyone a fair shake to have their service included. Uh so if there's no objection, I will pass those around. Um and then perhaps take a brief recess for your review.
>> There's a motion to amend on the floor by councelor Heglin. >> Second. Second by councelor Dur allowance. We will take a brief recess while council hands out. order.
Uh we can take these amendments one by one. We'll start with amendment number one from councelor Higin. Is there discussion on this motion? Council. >> Thank you. So a minimum one being the the salary adjustments for the chiefs.
Um, again, I I as I learned more about those positions, I know councelor journal had some questions at our finance committee meeting. Getting that information from the auditor, um, looking closer at their ordinances and speaking with the mayor, I felt that these were in comparison and in track with the other changes I had proposed to
the grid that these were in keeping with those. Um, so really this would just be upping the numbers that are there, which are definitely not, I think, appropriate for this change. So this would be putting in what I feel are more appropriate numbers uh for that position. >> Further discussion councelor Kazinskus.
>> Uh so through the chair to councelor heglin can you just ex just so for clarification can you just explain exactly what these numbers include? >> Sure. >> Thank you Mr. President. >> Thank you Mr. >> So uh what I did was I took the base
salaries that currently are the case. So the true base salaries. So you might see in the budget that the mayor put forth $146 $1,000 for the police chief. That is the base pay of $115 plus the maximum amount of 25%
for the master's degree educational incentive. So these are just the base pay and the educational incentives. Um, so if they, so if we hired a new chief and they came in with a bachelor's degree, um, the starting salary plus
that level would equate to those starting salaries. Um, so it does not include any other additional pay, but other ordinances include like the clothing allowance or holiday pay, just base pay and educational incentive. >> And it looks like that's how it was done in the other proposal. So I wanted again
keeping the spirit of some things alive. >> Thank you. Council Kenis further discussion council journal outs >> just quickly um looking at these numbers I I know they're they're closer to in line um for what I envisioned obviously
if this does get amended and the um does go to first printing give further time to digest them further but I I appreciate the work that was done here thank you councelor >> heck council council neck >> um if this doesn't go for can you place
the Avenue would be updated. >> Yes. Yeah. Um and you know the clerk would include it but those will be updated. I can get a more updated version to the clerk as well like I did for the original packet. >> Thank you. >> Any further discussion on the this
amendment for the salary grid? >> There's no further discussion. All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. >> No. >> No. >> No. [Music] The amendment uh has passed.
Amendment number two. Councelor Hegler moves to amend the ordinance in section one section six subject subsection one by striking subdivision A in its entirety. Any discussion on motion? Councelor, >> thank you. Again, I'll just reiterate. So, this prior service credit year
system outlined currently has a 5-year minimum length to qualify. This would eliminate that threshold to current employees um plainly if a current employee at some point in the past work for the city but for less than 5 years. I'm proposing this one time sort of as the grandfather clause. Anyone hired
before that date um and one time only, we allow that to be factored in. Again, just like any prior credited service, it's not necessarily guaranteed, but it allows for that opportunity, and I think that's the fair thing to do for all of our employees. Thank you.
Further discussion. There's no further discussion. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> No. >> No. two councils. >> Motion passes. Right. So, those two items have been
amended. We're back to the original amendment that was on the floor. Brooks. >> Uh, yes. Thank you. I just have a quick question. I notice there's a section one, section two, and a section four. Is there a section three?
Corn. [Music] [Music] It does look like something may have been cut off. um at what point I do not know um and I don't know if that was
a digital error um but there is a section three and there should be one here um [Music] so if again if we go if this moves to first printing um that is something that would have to be updated in the additional packet but there is language
there uh as well that was included in the finance version and for some reason is not is missing. >> That's it. Transl. >> I do have the finance committee version here as well. I actually don't see it in the finance committee version either. Just the page changes there. So I
believe it just might be a numbering numbering >> just be my numbering issue. >> At least what we had from the finance committee. >> Section one, two, and then three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. So there really should only be nine sections. Um in sub
a subsection section one. Yeah. Numbering issue. >> Discussion on councelor Higglin's original amendment that is now amended. >> Um I have an amendment um I think in section two and section six for the
prior service year determinations for council employees. So the auditor, the treasurer, collect tax collector and the clerk. Um I think it should be the council president who negotiates and proposes that in those cases just because they are positions that are
overseen by the city council. Um, so the language of my amendment would be that I move to amend the ordinance to section one, section two, subsection one, and subsection two, and then six subsection one by adding to each after the word
mayor the following or for employees in group 1B, the council president. I don't have it printed out and I don't have it to pass out to everyone. Um but it's it simply is just adding or for employees in group one be the council
president. So it gives um the council president uh the ability to um negotiate and prop propose that um in the cases of the auditor treasurer tax collector and the clerk.
Second uh >> motion by councelor Kazinskus, seconded by councelor Durowitz to amend the motion that is on the floor. Uh do you have the language? >> I don't have >> I have I can give you the language. Um
>> do you mind providing us the language please? >> I know you don't have copy. >> I don't have copy. >> Do you have it in front of you? >> I have it in front of me. >> Can you provide that to the clerk please? [Music] Have a motion and a second on an amendment to proposal on the floor. Is
there discussion on this motion? Council Heman. >> Thank you, Mr. President. It's not something I had thought of. I think it is an interesting point. Um something I definitely a philosophy I'll say I entered into this process with is that
you know we do have those appointees. They are effectively our direct reports. Um they're part of our check and balance with the mayor. Um and I think for me that's something and wanting to include a lot of that that strong council language in here. The reason I felt that
was important is because we do have these appointees and we do have these department heads who are again we're responsible for I think and so I I do think that's interesting language um and I'm very much open to supporting that. So thank you for that thought.
>> Additional discussion on the motion to amend hearing none. All in favor I >> opposed. No. >> No. Council Stone, Council Brooks. >> The amendment passes.
Returning to the original amendment that is on the floor. Council Hecklund, is there additional discussion on this motion? Councelor, >> I just want to clarify that I will absolutely update the numbers, get that to the clerk if this passes, if this if I'm, you know, fortunate enough to see my my amendment pass and um I will fix
that numbering type of issue with Google Docs. even English teachers at least patiently missing. So, thank you. Thank you for pointing that out to my colleague as well. >> Any further discussion? Council journal outs.
>> I think there's been a lot of great discussion here previous meetings. um do want to make it fully clear that and kind of echo the remarks of the mayor as well of that this is a major undertaking and that this is something um that's
been needing to happen for a long time. It's again a giant step forward in the right direction. Um a vote for this is giving significant raises to our um non-UN um employees in this compensation schedule and vote no is doing nothing.
Thank you. Council General Further discussion officer Hickler. >> I um I want to I thank you for those those statements and I do want to also give um just again some credit to the mayor uh and the work that was done
behind this. Uh I think it was a large undertaking. I think it was long overdue. I appreciate the initiative from the department heads and the mayor in bringing this forth. I think this has been a healthy example of I think the legislative uh process and how things
take place and I really am committed and passionate that something happened. Again, I'll reiterate that we can always add to this. We can always build upon this. It gives us a starting point. I think it is long overdue. Um
and I and I do think it is reflective of our appreciation for for our department head's work. I know it is a change and I know it is less um but we do have of course a responsibility to the taxpayers to the
city of Gardner to the financial stability of the city and again it's always easier to add it is worse to subtract. Um, and so I I'm hopefully and humbly asking for support on this. I do agree that this is a great time to get something happening and to move
something forward so that we have something to work from going forward. Thank you, >> Mr. Edmond. Any further discussion? Councelor Stone. >> Yes, I've been listening to everybody's point of view and I do respect each and every person here and your perspectives
on um the the salary for the non salaries for the non-union employees. Um there's a lot of hope. I hear a lot of hope. Hope isn't a strategy. We need a strategy moving forward with Gardner. Um
we we need solid definitive hard numbers that we know that we're going to be up against as we move forward. I personally want to see us do something. As the as what the mayor stated earlier, we need some type of system in place. I've talked to other counselors. I know that we need some
type of system in place. I personally do not feel as though this particular amendment addresses everything that we need to address. It does address some of the things um from um increas increasing
salaries for welldeserved um for the people who work hard for the city. Um, at this time I will um support it going to first printing, but I think a lot of things need to be scrutinized
prior to this going to second printing. And so I don't want to slow down the process or do nothing and a no vote isn't necessarily nothing. It's there's different perspective and a different opinion. So I I will disagree with that
statement. I think there's things that we can do as a council and we need to work together to do that. Um, and I just feel as though that we need to work together, continue to work together and listen with an open mind. Um, and that's all I have to say on this. Thank you,
Councelor Kazinsk. >> Uh, thank you. I would like to request a roll call vote on this, please. >> There's no objection. There'll be a roll call vote. Any further discussion? Councelor Tunez.
>> Thank you, Council Protemp. Uh, I mean, President Promp, uh, as the mayor's original step plan was designed to attract and retain quality employees, uh, the amended version of this ordinance might save funds in the short run, uh, but we will end up paying more
in the long run, uh, when we lose good people to other municipalities that pay uh, more than we do. That's all. Thank you. I think it's not to debun. To be clear, the vote on the motion on the floor is to amend, not to send first
printing to amend the original item that is on the agenda and would replace that. So, if this amendment passes, then there will be a second vote because that item will then supersede the item that's on the agenda.
Council Edward, >> just as a point of clarification, we have amended mine with the other two amendments and the only version before us is mine. So, I don't know what else we would be further amending. What the finance committee recommended tonight
was my version and I move to send it to first printing to open up this discussion. >> Yeah, that was the original motion. So, we're back to the original motion is my understanding as well. All right. Then
the uh yes vote will send this first printing. >> Council Hegel. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um and I do want to thank you for jumping in on this, doing a great job of keeping us going and keeping us on track. Um is this going to I just want to clarify the
vote threshold for this to pass. If we could make sure that's clear for everyone as well. Is it 2/3? Is it simple majority? First printing is a simple majority. Thank you. >> Further discussion, council Mac. >> Um I think it would be prudent um any
other um you know, changes and amendments that people work, you know, or suggest them, you know, to to council Hegel and work collaboratively um before this, you know, does go to second printing. Um I think we need to have this as as clean as possible um when we
reconsider it for a final vote. um and not you know and and bring things up you know we can still bring up amendments for the first time and stuff but I think you know this is a work in progress and I think if people could reach out prior to that it would be very helpful so that
when it's in our packet again you know that we we have all the information um and suggestions um that are or amendments that people want to make to consider at that time. Thank you >> councelor B. Uh, thank you. And and kind
of following up on that, I guess I would just point out that the the mayor is concerned about having something ready for setting the tax rate, which would be toward the end of the month. However, I I'm not sure that we necessarily have to get to a final
printing of this by the end of the month, that we can adopt a money order to put to a salary reserve to cover the costs that we expect to have on this. And I say that because I want to make sure that we we take the time to do this. If we're going to do this, we we
need to do it correctly. While I don't agree with the proposal, at the end of the day, whatever proposal goes through, I want to make sure that it it's it's workable and and whether I agree with it or not, it's it's going to be uh workable for the
people that have to implement it. So, thank you. Further discussion hear none. The clerk will please call the role. >> First printing >> to send the amendment uh send the item to first printing. >> Okay.
>> Council Brooks. >> No. >> Councelor Craig. >> No. >> Council General Laws. >> Yes. >> Council Heath. >> Yes. >> Council Heg. >> Yes. >> Council Gazinskus. Yes. >> Console map. >> Yes.
>> Console tone. >> No. >> Console tunos. >> No. [Music] >> Vote. Five in favor, four against. The motion carries. [Music]
All right. Next item business is unfinished business and mandatory reconsideration. There are none. There is no new business. Counselor comments and remarks. Are there any counselor comments or remarks this evening? Councelor Mack. >> I just want to wish everybody um at the
Proville public schools a very successful and safe school year. to the faculty, staff, and students who return today. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Mack. Further, further council comments. Councelor Kazinskus. >> Thank you, President Tyrros. I just wanted to uh
make an announcement about International Overdose Awareness Day and Night of Hope. It is tomorrow, Wednesday, September 3rd. It's from 6:30 to 8:30 at Monument Park. And they do have the luminary lighting at um city hall
immediately following the event at uh at Monument Park. And it's a beautiful event and it's something that's really important to this community. We have several really important resources in this community um regarding overdose
awareness and uh they have several sponsors for the event that really highlight the importance of it. And so I just want to make sure the community was aware of that event. Thank you, President Tyrros. >> Thank you, Councelor Kazinskus. Are there further councelor comments or remarks? Councelor Heath. >> Thank you, uh, President Tyros. Uh,
welcome back. I just want to go ahead and, um, give a kudos, a thank you to, um, Council Hegel. Um, you know, and we've done a lot of work lately, um,
between the salaries. And you know, I want to point out, even though we were just here for a while talking about the salaries, that's not what I want to give you kudos. I want to give you a good job on that right there. But I want to give you a great job on the uh Waterford
School Community, you know, center. Um you've done a lot of work. you've kept us updated between the CAC, the uh growing um places, um the senior living, you know, keeping us informed, um keeping us updated and, you know, going
to keep us updated as we get new, you know, tenants and things are there. Um great job, great work. Thank you. Um, one other thing, if you don't mind, um, President, I just want to go ahead and, um, say, uh, we're entering fall sports,
you know, so if you guys get a chance, go check out the, uh, Garden of Wildats, um, no matter which sport that is, um, soccer, football, um, you know, go out there and, you know, go out there and go support the local um, high school. That is all. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Heath, for the
counselor comments. There being none, I would just like to wish all of our students at Gardenner public schools a good first day back to school and wish them well this year. >> With that, I'll change to >> motion to adjourn. Seconded. Motion made
by councelor Brooks eagerly. Seconded by councelor Cormier. >> All those in favor? I >> I. >> All those no. Motion passes. Please stand over all as we adjourn the opportunity of joint deliberation and act to witness
during the course of this meeting. Bless the Lord all those gathered here and the people who represent as we are and do thou attend to our common welfare until our next meeting. Amen.