Being time I now call the Gardener City Council Committee of a whole meeting on Monday, August 18th, 2025 to order. The clerk will now please call the role. Councelor Brooks, present. Councelor Craig Cormier, present. Councelor Lawis, present. Councelor Hardner, present. Councilor Heath, present. Council Hegel, present.
Council Kazinskus, present. Council Math. Council Tissone present. Council Tibo Mios present. And President Tyrus present. Open meeting recording notice. 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 conduct of the meeting. Any person intending to make such a recording shall notify the chair forth with. All
documents and exhibits used are referenced at the meeting must be submitted in duplicate to the chair as it become part of the meeting minutes. Is anyone recording tonight's meeting? Response agenda item 11539 an ordinance to amend the city of
gardener chapter 8 thereof entitled personnel to replace attachment one schedule E thereof entitled non-union compensation schedule. As a reminder, this is an item that was referred to the committee of the whole during the budget process this past year. Members of the
council, regarding this item, I have accused myself from particip 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 in this
ordinance. Therefore, I will be stepping down from the chair and excusing myself from the matter. Okay, my turn. At this time, nominations are in order for council council pro town. I now open the floor for nominations. Council General Dawitz. I nominate councelor Craig Cormier.
Second motion made by council general, second by councelor Kaziscus to nominate council formir. Are there any other nominations? Move to close nominations. Second.
Motion made by councelor Dawis, seconded by councelor Brooks to close the nominations. Nominations are now closed. Want to call the role of members. Please state. Okay. Motion made by councelor Dawa, seconded by councelor Brooks to close
the nomination. All in favor say I. I. Those oppos say nay. Motion carried. Nominations are now closed. I will call the members of the role to state the council of your choice. Councelor Brooks. Councelor Craig Cormier. Council Greg Cormier.
Councelor Cormier. Councelor Dawitz. Councelor Craig Cormier. Council Hardurn. Councelor Craig Cormier. Council Heath. Councelor Craig R. Cormier. Council Hegland. Councelor Craig Cormier. Council Kazinskus. Councelor Craig Cormier.
Council Tunos. Councelor Cormier. Councelor Tone. Councelor Craig Cormier. I have nine votes for councelor Cormier. Council Cormary, you are elected the
president for this. I will open the agenda item to discussion on the floor. There any councelor comments, questions? Councelor Heglin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. um you know thinking about and leading up to tonight I wanted to sort of look at my holistic
approach first and open up with that to begin. So since the topic of raises first came up many months ago I you know I've expressed in the past that I'd be hardressed originally to support raises but I wasn't necessarily opposed and that's because I have high expectations when it comes to considering such
proposals. For me something like this current proposal though is long overdue. I think until this point in time, the criteria for raises has been largely subjective. Who's comfortable enough to ask versus who isn't, who might be a favorite versus who isn't, and on and on. And I think that's an old system,
right, that that was around before many of us. Uh, and I think the mayor's proposal, as developed by his department heads through the working group and the budget process, uh, does push the city closer to an actual structure that would largely avoid individual subjectivity.
The goal of a salary grid is unbiased and equitable and I think that's a great step for us to take. Uh so I commend the mayor for once again working with staff to improve a flawed system that he inherited. That being said and having had time to review the current proposal, I do have some concerns. You know, I've
struggled to find any clear connections between the salary study findings and this current proposal. There's no explanation of really how the study was utilized that I saw uh in the 700 plus pages we had, how the current salaries, some of the mayor's proposed salaries in the budget and the study fit together.
We really almost have three numbers. There's the working group's numbers, there's the mayor's numbers we saw in the budget, and there's a salary study. Um, and then I do want to bring our attention to the projections included in our packet. I think it was around page five or six from our auditor. If you
look at the 10-year projection, it shows 618,79 and increased salary costs for that fiscal year. However, those calculations from what I could read were from the baseline that includes the initial increases to implement a grid system which we haven't done yet and I think
should be considered part of the cost of this proposal as it is an increase from the current ordinance. So looking at it, the actual cost when you look at everything al together for the budget by the 10-year mark is almost a $2.5 million in new spending again over those
next 10 years. The other piece I think we need to be cautious about is the shift from costs away from the general fund onto the enterprise fund. First, because I don't think it really matters to our constituents where the salaries come from and whether it's fees or taxes. I think for them it's right, it's
all out of their pockets. Second, because I'm worried the feasibility of this proposal relies too heavily on that shift. Over 10 years, the salary burden on the enterprise funds more than doubles. And this proposal shifts about 10% of the cost of salaries onto the enterprise funds. And I know we do come
back to those a lot of times for other projects and work that needs to be done. With the ordinance itself, I do think there are a few areas for improvements. Um, as such, I've offered some amendments. The hope of these amendments is to give both the council more say in the process moving forward as well as allow this and future mayors the
flexibility to consider internal and external municipal experience and years of service when finalizing someone's starting point on the grid. It's a common practice not only in other city departments um but in private private and public sectors across the Commonwealth uh as well as the country right and the
world. This is something we see a lot. gives that flexibility in negotiating and to me these are essential changes that this council should consider and should make to the proposal as it stands now and I hopefully will ask for your consideration of those amendments. Thank you.
Any further questions, comments, discussion, councils, council kazins. Okay, thank you. So most of my questions go on how the
dollar amounts in the proposal were reached so we can better understand how the salaries were developed because I don't think we can properly evaluate these numbers until we understand how the numbers were made and we don't have
that information. Um, and so first, excuse me, sorry. Um, so I think the first thing here is, and I just, just as a reminder, like on June 2nd, the council voted to make five
requests of information from the mayor to be able to better understand and evaluate this time around when we met. And those were for the entire entire salary study itself. A list of the members who served on the salary working
group, an explanation of how the group conducted its work, a detailed explanation of how the final salary figures were determined, and cost projections for the new compensation schedule for three, five, and 10 years out. Um, and to be clear, from the
council's request in June, we have in our packet for tonight's meeting only two items of the five that were requested. And that was a statement that I had made in the June 2nd meeting. Um, and I had followed up with the council president and the clerk with those five requests.
um we don't have a formal answer um to who was on the salary working group, how the group conducted its work or an answer to how the final salary figures were determined. Um and while I'm sure that the mayor can speak to these questions um and even
tonight, it would have been ideal to have had these answers ahead of time after that June 2nd meeting. And we intentionally requested them as decided in the meeting so that we could better understand how this proposal was put together. And that was the intention and
that remains. That's all that is behind getting that information. Whenever we vote on anything as a city council, we have to have the information as to how whatever we're voting on was presented to us and why it was presented that way. We just don't have that information. Um,
so this is a it's a big complex issue with years of impact on our taxpayers and I think councelor Hedland made that pretty clear in his statement that he just made there and there's a reason that this has been a growing problem for our city and
there's a history as to why past mayors and past councils have been unable to solve it. Um, but I think we're here now. this council has already committed to getting information, having discussions, and we're ready and willing to work um with the mayor um to solve
solve this issue that has been around for years. So, I'm interested in this discussion um working through the issue and getting the best possible outcome um for our
employees and for our residents. That's what we do as city councilors. We are supposed to look into issues before we vote on them. We want to make educated votes and I just don't think that we have that information yet. I mean, we did get provided hundreds of pages of information. Um we did get the
salary study uh to be clear and the projections of of all of the years out that we had asked for but I just I do think it's important whereas we get numbers from a group we want to understand the way that they came to them and think of that really thoughtfully before we can we can move
forward. um and the mayor's proposal in the budget, you know, we have that information, so to speak, but we really need to get more of it to really understand how things came to be um before we vote on something. And I just can't emphasize that enough. So, I I
would like to to get more info um there. And um if I may, I'm going to go on a little longer if everyone's okay with that. Okay. Um so, just beginning with the salary study. Um so the the hundreds it
was like 600 plus pages that we got that were submitted um in October of 2024. Um just on the timeline there um and you know it say with the stated purpose of assuring that it compensation plan is
both internally equitable and externally competitive. So that's the salary study. It involved comparing 16 other cities and towns against eight comparison factors, things like population, per capita income, state aid levels, and
each role was evaluated against nine factors such as education, um supervisory responsibilities, requirements, things like that. So that's where I kind of begin with the um with the salary study there. And
I So going off of that, um I you know first like how was the salary study used to develop the numbers that we got? Um you know we can go into
dollar amounts in the proposal that were reached um so we can better understand again how the salaries were developed but um we really need to get more information. Um, in some cases, according to comparisons that were there, the salaries that we've been
offering are already above the average, but this the package that we got raises for every position. So, how were those decisions made? Those are the kinds of questions that we want to get answered. And the last thing is that in some cases, the amount of money requested by the department head for their salary was
actually lower than what was proposed in the budget. And we just want some explanation of that. I mean, that's what I want. Um, and I would assume that would be helpful for the council. Um, you know, there are specific positions that had a request and then the mayor's budget had a different answer. Like, how
did that come to be and and how did that why was that? Uh, and then the other side of it is the amount and percentages um increases, they vary considerably from position to position. So we just I would want to be walked through the
process of how that was those increases were determined just to understand how that type of thing was done. And then um so that was kind of like the mayor's piece of it. He provided us with the salary study. We got the mayor's budget and that was kind of where I'd
want some more information. Moving on to the working group side of it from the information that was requested and the questions the other four pieces of information. One of them we did receive um and the information that we've been provided it um described
a meeting where there were department heads again we don't know who was in the working group they discussed like each other's salaries they took votes on what each other should be making and I do have some concerns about that on in itself but I'm just hoping that it can
be explained what that situation was what the rationale was and what part of the process that was and again who was in the group and how was the salary working group conducting their work what was their process you know we our
process is public when we when we do these things it's important for us to have a public process and to say why we do the things we do I'm just interested in how they came to what they came to and and who and who came to it um and beyond that Um, I would just say that,
you know, it's been said that the city can afford the proposal and that was something that the mayor had said and I'm just interested if we can get an explanation of how that was determined and what that analysis was by the mayor or with the working group or where that came to. I think we all want to be able
to afford this. We want to be able to compensate positions as they should be compensated, but we have to understand what that's going to do to us, you know, down the road. And if what we got was like, yes, we can afford this. We can do this. And I do think that best foot was put forward by the working group and by the
mayor because I, you know, that's how I feel about how people want to work in the city, but I just have to have more information that says why it was done that way and why they felt that way. We need to be able to see that because we've got to keep this ship sailing, as they say. And that's my that's what I
have for this evening. So, um you know, I and I'd be open to the mayor answering the questions. We just we have to get that information, I think, before we take a vote on this or before we move forward. And I know that's what I feel most comfortable with. So, thank you all. Council.
Yes. Uh Council Brooks. Yeah. I And I'm just going to speak a little more generally. um having having worked in the city, having been a department head, so I understand the department head's perspective, but also having been city auditor, so I
understand the money perspective. Uh and some people in the room might know that I can be pretty tight and strict with the money here. Um I just think we have it's been 20 years since department head
salaries have been reviewed and um I want to say upgraded or or brought more current. Uh 20 years ago that would have been when Mayor Sandler uh pushed through a proposal that gave department heads increases that that
brought us in more in line with what other communities were doing. I think we should kind of have that thinking in mind as we're going forward that we're we're trying to do something that benefits the city
by benefiting the department heads that that we have maybe gotten to a point where department head salaries haven't uh kept up with where they are in other communities. Uh I have my experience is that Gardner is very uh tight with its
money which is a good thing but we also have to recognize that we we do have to uh be aware of what the going rate is for department heads and what uh what we need to be paying. We have to remember that the department heads are the are
the frontline people who are doing the work that we're trying to get done. and the other people that we call when we our constituents have problems that come to us and we need to make sure that things are being uh run well in the city. So, I don't have a problem with with the questions
that are being asked. I don't have a problem with talking about how we're doing certain things. I do want us to to try and keep this positive and moving forward so that that at the end of the day or not the end of today but when we get through this
process we have a we have something in place that that's workable and and beneficial not just for the department head but for the city itself. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I mean, I would I would agree with the counselor in in the
sense where we certainly need to keep ourselves competitive and and I think it's important for people to be compensated appropriately for the position that they're in. I mean, we don't want to be a stepping stone where people come here and get experience and then they move on because solely because
of their compensated piece. um we don't want to do that and we do want to keep this moving forward because as we had said in the June 2nd meeting it was very clear that we're going to talk about this and we are going to do something something clearly needs to be done we have people who do excellent work for this city we have positions where
there's a lot of expected from them and we want to get there it's just getting there is what we need to do and we have to understand how to do it and I I just don't you know for me I I don't think we're there yet but I this conversation will certainly continue um you know
after this evening from from my opinion because again I think this is the council to do it like enough is enough. There's enough talking about it. Let's just meet on it. Let's discuss it. Let's get the information. Let's do it. But we've got to have that in order for us to be able to move on. Um and I appreciate the counselor's comments, you know, just about saying like we got to
keep the city moving. We got to keep running the city, but we've also have to be very aware and action based when um we're going to be considering the people that work for the city and keep us in the shape that we are in. Um, thank you.
Yeah, sir. Any other questions before I Thank you. Uh, President, uh, Cormier. Um, I do have some questions, right? But I don't know if I should go ahead and address them now, if they're going to get lost in the presentation or not. Um,
I have a whole list of questions. However, I'll just go through two real quick. Um, you know, one of the concerns I have is with some of the math involved um with this proposal and some of the projections listed in the email um that
the auditor sent on June 11th. Um what it says is the proposal pushes off the general fund salary expenses into the enterprise funds to pay for these increases. And while I think it makes a lot of sense in some cases, such as the city
engineer, as he does help out with the sewer and water projects, um, but has anyone evaluated or been given a reasoning for the new distributions? Does the DPW director really spend a third of his time on
water, a third of his time on the sewer when we have a contractor? That's one of the questions that I have. Um, I do have some other questions, but I'll wait until after the present on our presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion before I
let the mayor speak, Mr. Mayor? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you counselors for your time this evening. Uh, I did jot down as many notes as I could for all of the questions that were asked, but if I forget one, please uh let me know. I'd be happy to answer
those at this time. Um to begin with some of the questions uh that were asked mainly on you know how the numbers got here, who was in the group, the uh information from the group and their process. Uh the working group itself was composed of our city auditor John Richard. Um mainly because uh that's the
main uh department who helps work with me with the budget uh and making sure that uh we stay financially within our projections. uh the uh director of public works uh Dne Arnold and city IT director uh Bob O'Keefe uh the city engineer Rob Oliva
the city assessor Christine Kumar and the HR director Amanda Morse um for various different reasons I mentioned the city auditor's reason the HR director being the person who oversees the um personnel side of things who was one of the main contacts that we had with the salary survey contractor and
working through that process and getting the expertise of looking at what other communities were offering and then we uh the various other employees you see there. We wanted a good cross-section of the different areas in which the department heads oversaw because unlike a
another compensation package that we deal with within a department or a bargaining group or anything like that which this is not and I you know acknowledge and say that this is different. This is a situation where we're looking at 19 department heads and then an additional 32 non-UN employees
all that fall under different departments all that fall under different um processes, regulations, general laws and everything in between. So we wanted to make sure we had that different breadth of opinion, expertise, field coverage uh and everything in between as well as longevity with the city so that there
was some institutional knowledge that was built into that there too. Sorry Mr. I have a followup if that's okay to that. So, who was who picked the group? Like, were all department heads allowed? Like, was it an email go out? Like, how did the group I just want to be sure this is representative of all
department heads? No, absolutely. Um, so the um city auditor, myself, and the DPW director had initial conversations about this as well as the human resources director and then it was really a discussion of what other areas have we not hit and could we get some expertise based on those
criteria. So, there were selections that I made. Okay. Okay. And so were all department heads aware that this was going on, that this was happening? Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Um the uh on page 105 of the packet that you have, uh
there is a two-page letter from the working group explaining their stuff. Um if there's more detailed that the council would like or felt like there wasn't enough detail in that to uh best answer the question from the council at the um previous meeting, happy to provide more information on that. Uh but
for the information that I can tell you right now uh just based off of my own memory. Um so the group met um probably five or so times uh this spring uh and then uh I met with every single department head in one big meeting. We
were all in the DPW conference room in which we went over uh again we talked about how this group was forming. uh we want I wanted to hear from everyone at once rather than just those specific department heads since it was almost the midway point of the process. The budget was just basically solidified at that
point point internally. We weren't ready to release it yet because we were still waiting for some revenue projection numbers from the Commonwealth. Uh and just to hear what everyone had to say. Um and that's really where we went over this results of the salary survey that was conducted uh by HRGV that's included
in your packet on page 163. Oh, excuse me. That's on page 15, excuse me. Um, how the salary survey was conducted was based off of a 50th percentile of the um,
comparable communities based off of those criterias that were previously listed and are listed in the packet. What the results of that salary survey showed was it created a minimum, median, and max range for posi like positions within those comparable communities that
were there. Um, as I stated in the FY 25 budget narrative, just to give a heads up as to some of the preliminary results that we received, understanding no action was being done and studies were still being done to move forward. But just as a preliminary information, the salary survey that was originally conducted showed that all but two of our
positions, the uh, director of veteran services and the director of the senior center met at least the minimum range of those comparable communities for those positions. Everyone else was really between m uh median uh minimum and
median uh with one or two outliers between the median and the maximum. When the uh full group of department heads met uh really the conversation that was had was I don't know where we can fall yet too. We're still waiting on revenue projections but we want to acknowledge
that those two positions fall outside that salary survey. So if anything is done, I mentioned that one of my priorities was to at least get those two positions that fell outside in those bounds so that they everyone could at least be at the minimum standard from
there with the goal of getting everyone to at least the median standard by a certain time frame and that was the result of that meeting. Um after that the salary working group took the feedback that was received by all of the 19 department heads at that meeting and
came back and proposed to me the uh proposal that you see on page 108 of your packets this evening. That original proposal uh proposed 8% between each step. Uh but it started with everyone at their current salary rate as step one.
And the reason for that is everyone but two positions at the current salary step for step one. The reason for that is everyone was already within the bounds of the salary survey, particularly mainly between the minimum and the median. Those two that were different from that were the director of veteran
services and the um director of the senior center. Since those were outside of the bounds of that salary survey, it set those two positions at the minimum that the salary survey said is the minimum for the range of those positions in those comparable communities. That
way again, everyone was at least at the minimum in the survey results that were done. Um, in working with the city auditor with our financial projections that we have uh based off of revenue increases, I think I've said a couple of times in the budget meetings uh that how we project revenue going out 5 to 10
years is we take 96% of our revenue that we received on of the 96% of the previous three years average in our revenue categories. knowing that some may be higher, some may be lower, but that 96% average normally gives us that buffer that we have and projecting that
out 5 to 10 years. We also um worked with the Commonwealth Department of Revenue to create a uh revenue projection uh module that the city now has. Uh there was a free service that do provided to the city based off of all of the informations that we've turned in in
the past and uh what our systems are moving forward. uh based off of both the do module that we now have on our online system and our internal projections that we have through those items uh we found that this would be an affordable solution for the city. So that's where we I was able to say when I proposed it
that um this was something that you know I believe we are able to afford and good for the city uh as along as a way to incentivize our employees staying here and get other people in competitive nature. I will say that there is one
posi two positions in here that are in the um the proposed ordinance change uh that the personnel is changing but would not affect the bottom line of this uh and that's uh the director of veteran services Cory Hasselman has accepted a
new position in the city of Lemon um leaving because they were offering $100,000 for that position so he's moving to a different community for financial purposes and And then assistant director of veteran services um Lauren Bimler uh is also leaving as well for a career change. So that was something uh different than it wasn't a
financial piece for that one. Uh but those two positions were within the time frame that they would still fall within step one of what's in the salary survey. So even those though those positions are changing uh that wouldn't be affected there. Uh the building commissioner in this proposed ordinance is set at what former commissioner Zupa would have been
making with his years of service with the city. So that would have been a higher step. Uh we do have an accepted offer for a building commissioner who will be beginning on September 4th under a temporary appointment for a probationary period, but that would revert back to step one of that uh proposal rather than a step three, which is where commissioners would have fallen
had he stayed in appointment with the city. Um the council, did I answer all your questions? I'm sorry. I think you've done a good job so far. Yes. Thank you. Um, I don't have any followup to them, so I appreciate that.
Thank you. And then for uh councelor Heath's uh questions on the enterprise fund splits, that's actually regulated by uh state law and reviewed by the department of revenue in terms of how we split those out under a case that was filed by Emerson College. Um where the funds in an enterprise can only be used
towards um not against us against the city of Boston just for out there, but it is the standing precedent of the Commonwealth um that the funds in the enterprise can only be used towards the services of the enterprise per the amount of time that's used there too. I should say that it is more than just the
GIS coordinator, the DPW director and the city engineer who are spread out amongst the enterprise accounts. If you remember in the budget season, the enterprise accounts actually have a line item in the budget that says transfer to the general fund. And those are what we call the indirect costs that go towards covering some of the fringe benefits and
uh other um compensatory line items for the various department heads that oversee certain aspects related to the enterprise accounts. So for instance, the city auditor oversees the payments that are done for the enterprise accounts. The water and sewer trash bills are directed to in the city
treasures department. Uh the purchasing director oversees all of the purchasing items to make sure that all of those follow the various um chapter 30b 149m 3030 uh the other procurement law that's on the books. Um all of those things there. So there is some portions of the
enterprise funds that actually do go to reimbursing us for the health insurance, the um retirement and all these other uh items that go with those department heads that are there. Um so really that was done based off of a more accurate you know how much time do you actually spend on those because that actually is
something we get audited on when the state reviews that breakdown and seeing is that really realistic? uh because there have been some communities that really do stretch how much is done by the enterprise accounts when it really shouldn't as a way of saving money. Uh but because the there are people in the
city who pay taxes but don't pay the rates in terms of you may pay property taxes but you don't you're on a well and septic so you're not paying into water and sewer. You shouldn't be subsidizing a benefit that you're not getting is basically what that case said. So we actually have to uh have that more evaluated. So the
conversation came on what really is this time spread that you have um almost in a reverse way of looking at that case and how much uh right now is the taxpayers really subsidizing the enterprise by what we're looking at those employees
doing um and seeing how we can spread that out more evenly and more equitably uh between the rateayers the taxpayers and looking at the full picture as a whole understanding that it's a financial burden for anyone uh involved in any of those systems and that many of our taxpayers are rateayers uh but it really is something that we had to make sure we're doing it as fair as possible
when it comes to looking at our fiduciary responsibility to the residents and the rateayers that we have here. So that's where that breakdown came from. All right. Um can I just ask a question about that? Yeah. Um so as far as that goes the proposed raises for I guess you would say city
engineer uh DBW director. Uh you mentioned the um sewer and water. Those rates won't rise to compensate for the their rates. Correct. Not not under the current proposal. Now, I do want to just get out there, too, that as we've said in the past, the Department of Revenue does recommend
every 3 to 5 years, you look at your rates just to make sure that everything's going. We recently did just look at our rates. Um, so we're in that 3 to 5 year period. I'm not saying this isn't going to be something we don't look at in the future. Um, but we don't need to raise rates to cover the costs that are there now. And again, it was
really just a more accurate reporting of how much time are you actually spending right now. Um, and that would have been something that we looked at had it just been the regular cost of living adjustment versus what you have in front of you here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
So, that was that was great. Maybe just for sake of ease going forward and there's that different go. So, yeah. Um, we were first talking about the history of the working group and the salary study. Um, I think my to that
information is then where did you get your budget salary proposals which in some cases were higher in some cases were lower than not only the salary study but the working group coordinates that we have here uh thank you very much thank you councelor um the working group that
suggested the 8% between the steps when the city auditor and I met with that really wasn't something that fit within our financial projections knowing that we had to try to figure out something um because this is something that was systemic here in the city that we had to simply fix. Um, and actually going back
and seeing the reasons where you can I I'll get to that part after because I want to answer your question first and I apologize for that. Um, that's the history major in me. Um, we could feasibly do 4%. Um, the original 12% and then the
secondary 8% just were two things we just couldn't afford in our projections. um with good intentions of getting everyone to median and everyone to maximum in the salary survey range over the course of a certain number of years. But the 4% we could do to at least start
the process of getting to where we need to be and start a longevity step scale so that we can incentivize people from staying here for staying here and try to get more people in the door. Now, in some ways this helps incentivize people staying here. In other ways, it
may not help people get people in the door because if we're saying our salaries aren't competitive enough at this time, but we're using that for step one, which is where a new hire may come in. That's where the flexibility was put in originally that I see that you've actually helped with uh not helped with, but supported in some ways through your amendment process of seeing if there's
someone who could start at a higher step versus uh step one. That's how that was kind of put in there. but to at least start the conversation of getting people to stay here. That was the main emphasis that was put uh in the proposal that I submitted forward there too. Uh but that's where the 4% between the step and
the difference between my numbers and what the salary uh working group came up with came from is they were looking at the higher end of the salary survey scale which is what anyone would do starting out like that and start somewhere. uh what I did here it gets most people at least to that median in
the range except for again those two positions that at least had to get to the minimum there it starts them getting towards that path um um if I may add just that thing I was just saying too looking back at the data that we had when the salaries had been
adjusted and amended in the past uh the main times that we saw adjustments made to positions came from either two reasons the first is there was a vacancy seen the position for which a uh new candidate was not a qualified candidate did not apply for
quite some period of time. So the pre uh previous mayor would come to the council ask for an increase for that position alone and then the applicants would come in a person would be hired and be taken as a one-on-one basis from that. The second time frame in which we saw positions adjusted really came when
duties were added or taken away or shifts were made in what that department oversaw. So for instance in 2015 there was an uh a raise given to the human resources director when the Greenwood pool was added to their position uh when the pool's full-time staff member in the
summer was eliminated and those duties were absorbed by the human resources department. that led to some increase uh an additional increase over and above the cost of living adjustment for the human resources department. Same thing when the IT director used to oversee the school that was added there too. When
other divisions when we took the divisions that were there that now have become our consolidated department of public works all of those things came into play when a position's compensation was increased without looking at the other positions that were there. You look at those two positions that fit outside the bounds of the salary survey.
Um, Director Buso, who was our previous director of veteran services, had been with the city for 25 years and just stayed with the city for 25 years with uh, cost of living adjustment each year. But since he was with the city that
long, that position really never got looked at in that way. um director Novak who was our senior center director for 22ish years. Same reasoning with that is that position really wasn't looked at because the person had been there for so long and really those adjustments by and large except for those one-offs that
were made when duties were shifted happened when vacancies occurred. Um, so that was another reason again as you mentioned earlier and I appreciate that that this was put in to make it so yet we're not looking at a one-off on oneoff on oneoff on oneoff but we're looking at everyone as a whole so that it's really
making sure that everyone's not being someone's not being left behind and it's more equitable system uh councelor thank you um president cormia um I just got a couple questions about steps Um so
um is the proposed 4% raise at each step sustainable or appropriate across all departments? Um so for an example uh some of the employees who work at the golf course in the library, does it make sense for us to include them in the step
system? Aren't those positions uh funded in different ways than other employees on the list? Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, counselor. Um, for the employees at the library, those are actually funded through the general fund, just as any employee in city hall
is. The way that the library operates is that the association, the nonprofit owns the building and the materials in it. The city funds the budget for the salaries and the new materials that get purchased that then get transferred over to the trustees ownership uh for the library collection itself. Um, and the golf course is paid fully 100% out of
the golf enterprise account. Um, the reason that the step system is the same for them as it is for the other non-union employees that are there, because this isn't just about the 19 department heads, it's also the additional 32 non-un employees that we have. That's the staff in my office, that's the staff in the human resources department, that's the staff in the
community development and planning department. Um, and the assistant directors across the board to the assistant department heads um was just to make the system the same for everyone. So, it didn't look like we were favoring one group versus another versus another. if everyone was in the previous ordinance, it looked at everyone the same way except those I
will say that are part-time employees. Um, so you look at the airport manager who only works 19 hours a week. Um, that position wasn't included in the salary survey for that reason in that um, we really looked at the full-time
um, employees that were in the non-UN side. Uh you'll notice there is a uh part-time building commission uh building local inspector in there. Uh that's because um in looking at the applicants that we had for the position, we didn't know if we would be able to fill a full-time local
inspector with what we had right now. Uh but we had several people interested in part-time inspectors. That was just mainly for flexibility because while we were able to make offers for two full-time local inspectors, um the way that their union contract is written is it covers the full-time employees, not the part-time employees. In which case,
if we ended up with a part-time local inspector that's not covered under union contract and not covered under the ordinance, we have no legal mechanism with which to pay that employee. Uh so that's why that position was added and tucked in at the end there, too. uh and that you know other positions that were not included in the salary survey um
that we're looking at for next year and or you know whenever the financial projections show uh that we're able to do that are our lifeguards that are covered in this ordinance are uh rec department staff that's covered in this ordinance uh and any of the other uh positions
that um for lack of a better term are on call uh employees and that's our students and measures our director of civil defense. Um, those I I should say there were some positions that councelor Hegeland did bring to my attention that were not included in the
ordinance that were omitted by clerical error. Uh, that those the airport manager, the civil defense director, and the sealer of weights and measures. Thank you, councelor. Um, that those would have to be added into this ordinance proposal, too. And I do want to acknowledge that those were there. And
the reason why they were missed is because they weren't included in the salary survey. And we were so focused on that that I think they just got lost in the bunch. Um, so that is something that I did want to acknowledge and recognize uh and say that we are, you know, we will put those back in. Those would fall under this bottom section along with the other ones that wouldn't be included in
the SE scale because they're more of an on call u as needed part-time employees. Okay. Um, if I may, one more question about the steps. Um, but I just want to thank Council Hegel because he does that to me in the appointments committee. He
notices little things and he corrects me in ways and makes me look at things differently. So, I love that about him. Uh, thank you again, Council Hein. Um, section six of the ordinance allows the mayor to approve step two entry level pay for new hires based on education,
training, and experience. Um, should this be something that goes in front of the appointments as far as if they should be allowed to be set to at higher? Mr. I'm happy to answer that, but I know councelor Hland had a proposal on that.
Well, you miss councelor Heglin. Thank you. Um just to since as the mayor pointed out, one of my amendments, and I was hoping to talk about amendments at some point, I'll just focus on this one at the moment, is that um some of this language would add back
into here. And for those that may have my amendments, there's three of them. On the first and the third, I add in that language of subject to council approval with the hope and this sort of came up in in councelor Kazinskus' opening remarks is and the mayor as well
addressed this that currently we anytime there's a raise it's an ordinance change so we are involved in the process. This change which I love the steps idea would remove that power and authority that we currently have. So to your point, counselor, I do feel that if when if and
when these amendments do come up and and we consider it, I do feel adding in that language is important while, you know, being mindful of time and negotiating windows um you know, meaning needing to be what they might be in a moment. I do think it's important that we retain some of that ownership in
the process um and have that chance to approve. So, it's something we'll get to consider that I put forth and yeah, I don't know if the mayor through the chair had anything else to add to that, but council, you just proved my point again. Thank
you. He notices everything. He's ahead of me, that's all. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. Mr. Mayor, would you like to add anything? Uh, sure, Mr. President. Um, I will say in the review of the other communities that we looked at and in looking at other cities across the Commonwealth as well, even when there are step scales
put into the ordinance, they do um many communities do require annual authorization of that step scale by the council as part of the budget vote. Um, I'm all for more transparency and more collaboration. Um, I'm would be more than happy to see something like that.
Thank you, Mr. President. Um so just this is kind of about about format and so in the current ordinance um the well the format that's being that has been in your proposal is entirely different it seems and what's currently
there. Um and I I don't know what the reason is for that. So that's I guess that's part of the question. But also in the current ordinance, there are education salary incentives for certain positions as an example. And if it seems
like those are not there. I mean, they're I don't know if they're being eliminated or they just wasn't included, but it seems that the education requirements for the salary incentive um is being removed, but not the actual salary increase. So, is that correct?
Like what is the reason for that? because that kind of explains some of these things within these increases. And so that's just part of the information is how it came to be. Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counselor. Um the up until the 20 I want
to say the 2021 budget. I have to go back and look. Uh that breakdown actually did not exist into the ordinance. That's something that I added in for um transparency sake so that the council saw where the different pockets of money that built up a position's final pay came from. Um, previous
iterations of the ordinance just said this position, this pay. It didn't break down educational incentive for the uh the department heads that qualify for educational incentive are the police chief, the deputy chief, and the fire chief. Um, the some positions um
the city auditor gets a master law stipen for being a member of the retirement board by state law. The uh director of purchasing gets a stipen by master law for being the civil enforcement officer. Um there's different things like that that go into those positions that made up the final compensation numbers. Um so back then,
former director Pond and I when we were talking about putting the ordinance together, I asked her to include those breakdowns that are in there so that people could see what what each individual department had received because not everyone receives a clothing allowance. Not everyone receives those stipens by the general laws. Not everyone receives that educational
incentive. And that was mainly put in there for clarity and transparency sake. There are other places in the ordinances in which those are covered that says these specific enumerated positions get a clothing allowance. This position gets the stipened due to Mass General law and those are all worded out separately in
the sections of the ordinance themselves in various other sections. But unless you went through and looked for those, you weren't going to find them in one big specific place. So that's why uh the previous iterations of the ordinance broke those out. Um I want to say it was the 2020 fiscal 21 budget. Um, but I have to go back and check to when that
change was made, but that was while I was mayor in the last five years. Uh, what you see before you here today, um, is that bottom line number because I didn't know how to include those in a step scope. Um, but where those were covered in other areas of the ordinance as well. Um, what the previous iteration
did before we included them in the breakdown from when I changed that back in, like I said, I believe 21 was a footnote was added at the bottom of the ordinance that said this position receives this, this position receives that, and breaks out what built up those numbers for various positions with asterisks noted next to those positions
themselves. Um, if that's a format that people prefer, I'm happy to do that. If there's a format that people would look to prefer to see if there's a way to include those breakdowns back in to see what builds that up, I'm also happy to provide that as well. Um, really this is
just something that uh, as I stated before was looking to see if we could get a process going. Um, but I'm always looking, you know, happy for feedback on how things would be more transparent uh, more readily translated uh, more easily, you know, understandable in the format itself um, to see what would be better.
So, I'm sorry. ask a clarification. I have a followup to that too. It's okay. I just quick question. Sorry. Is are you saying for the city auditor that the salary in here includes his stipen as a retirement
board member? Yes. Yes, it does. Okay. Thank you. That was my question too. I just want So does the number include that in there and like that's just because it wasn't there. So was like is that going to be an addition to what we're doing? like just just to be clear just for our own
information. That's what we want to know. It just I mean that's what I would want to know is to be clear does that is that included in there um because I think it is helpful to have that there. Yeah. Um for the purposes that you had added it in. Yeah. Um but is it still there is is the question.
Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. Uh Mr. President, um just checking in with the city auditor in the front row. It's not. It's not. Oh, okay. Is basically when we look at the schedule is what they're making their
salary. Step one is what they're making right now. No, there's no stipen in that month. Base salary the base salary. Yeah. So that schedule you have that's the base salary then it has the 4% in so that stipen for
each one gets a noted. Okay. So that uh I will double check counselor and get that to you for the next meeting too on what stipens are not included. But looking at at least the police chief and the deputy chief's pay, they wouldn't hit that number had it not been for the educational incentive the and the other items that are in there
too um based off the current ordinance. So I will do a full breakdown of what every each position receives. Um so that that's more clearly iterated there and what's included, what's not. Thank you. So to be clear, it's it's we want to know what's in the salary. That's what I would want to know is what
is included in this number and what is in addition to this number. And it's it's fine whatever it is. We just have to be really clear on on what that is because it wasn't previously. And without that information being included, I assumed that it wasn't because it wasn't there. Okay. But it's again, this is it's it's just all about the
transparency piece of it. And I just I didn't know if it was there or not. That's all it was. It wasn't like it it wasn't like you said, if it wasn't previously included, fine. But this is was different. And it just didn't seem, you know, we want to be sure they're getting what they're supposed to get through that. there's a you know a um
state statute or whatever it is but it just wasn't clear. So thank you. All right. Thank you council he so because it goes with something um for a change so I appreciate that. Um and it goes with this discussion. So
we're talking about base salaries. I had not thought of this until councelor heat's question and then the following points that came up. Um, when we look at something like the community development director, part of their salary comes from the GR Mhm. which is a very different pool of money. So, is that also like should the raise
only be on the city portion? I don't know. I don't have an answer. I'm just putting this out there for I think this is something we all need to think about. When we talk about these salary breakdowns and the idea of salaries coming from different venues, it's something we might need to think about. Back when you know the recck department, some of that comes from the schools. Are
we raising the whole piece? Are we the 100,000? Are we raising the 30,000 the city pays for? I think that's something we really have to be mindful of. So I just want to make that point and statement and put it on our radar. Thank you councelor councelor journal. Did you have
mine's going to be kind of on a new topic. So if councel gets going to comment on that too. Thank you councelor heglin for that because that is a gen that is a when it comes to us going through the budget like this was presented through the budget. We ask those questions regularly in our subcommittee meetings. when it comes up
where you see, you know, and whether it's for public clarification or for clarification of the members of the council, we always ask that. It's like, oh, this the salary looks this way. That's the only place that comes up most of the time, and that stuff just needs to be really clear for that reason. Um, so I appreciate the council bringing
that up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, uh, Mr. President. uh council to your point the um the I'm gonna try to remember it as best I can. Um for instance the positions like
the recreation director um the reason why just the recreation portion falls under the ordinance here uh is under chapter 70 the salaries of the school department employees are set by the school committee the superintendent um and then just included in the bottom
line number of the school department's budget. Uh but that said, the school department funds through athletic director portion of that position. We fund the recreation department portion of that position. Uh so that's why that's remained stagnant at that $30,000 across each year is because that's only
for the recreation department, not to subsidize the athletic director portion or the school to subsidize the recreation department uh in that matter. So that's the breakdown that was there. Um there was another position that you mentioned, community development. Community development. Yeah. So the way that um
that works is the GR board votes to give the city a grant each year from their funds as they are their own private quas public a uh entity that's there. So those are actually listed as a receipt in the general fund that would just go out and pay um that way. So again that was included in both this the CDBG cost
breakdown and the uh GR grant breakdown were also included uh I said in the 21 budget to add that clarity uh that was there. um because if there's a year that the redevelopment authority may not have a good year on their finances that how much they give the city is actually up
to that board's discretion. Um and then the amount that we receive in community development block grant funding actually depends on the federal government who then gives that money to the state as the mini entitlement program who then sends that to us. So that number may also fluctuate uh in any given year too. In which case we'd have to reevaluate what our process is based off of what
that grant receives in that year. Mr. Mayor Council General Alex. Thank you. Um I think everyone's asking great questions. Asking questions does not mean we're not in favor of these necessary types of changes. Um we do need a clearer picture. Um with some of
the numbers in here, Council Hegen spoke to them earlier. Um with the description of the changes, it seems like the Excel sheet or the screenshot of the Excel sheet. The first change is the delta between the 2025 budget and the 2026
budget, but then we're basing the other changes off of the 2026 budget pushing forward. Um it can be a bit confusing to some and looking at that. So the changes down below um aren't consistent on there. Um further on that with the documents we're receiving, sometimes
they are um at least me personally, I'd like to play around with them in Excel. Um we get them in a screenshot version. Um, we've got them before in the past. An Excel sheet I think would be helpful, especially in situations like this, we can kind of do our own math on our own. Um, also in the vein of what's being
talked about of incentives both in the finance committee meeting um and in the report by the um the third party to speak to uh merit-based um raises and doing some kind of blend. Um was that considered? Um what you know,
how was it considered? Why was it not used? Um our performance review that should be incorporated in something like this. Um or is the feasibility of that and your thoughts on those is something I'm curious about. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. Uh performance
reviews is something that we're already looking at uh across the city right now. It's really a department by department basis on who does them, who doesn't right now, and that's something we're looking at unifying. Uh but however, the main reason why this was more longevity based rather than merit based is uh as I said earlier to make the process more
objective rather than subjective. um and just at least start with something that um takes that opinion factor out of it I guess and one person may have one opinion while another may have a different opinion opinion. So if the final goal in the end was to make a more objective unified
formalized process that's why we didn't look at the merit based system rather than the longevity system including that included being that blend system that they speak to in the where it was more more heavily weighted it seemed towards longevity but there was an incentive for a merit base um
it looked like more like a stipen in addition there was a pool to be created to fund those out of when appropriate. Yeah, it in some ways it almost there were two systems that the contractor kind of spoke to us about while reviewing that process that was in the uh salary survey. The first was doing an
end of the year bonus system where if someone got a good performance review, they've received a bonus. Um, personally, I didn't know how to do that in ordinance where we have to have some type of legal background to pay someone for the auditors to clear. Um, so if the ordinance says this position gets paid
at for simple numbers $100,000, but then at the end of the year you get a good performance review, so I'll give you another $10,000. The auditor is going to say, "Where where do you get the authorization to give that other $10,000?" That's that. Um, and if someone who's to say that a where a performance review fell on a scale of
one to five that five meant $10,000, but you know, four meant $2,000 and things like there was just too much room for human error, for subjectivity, and for questions to be asked by the auditors. Uh, so that's why the bonus system didn't work. The other system that was proposed was doing a system in which if
you got a good performance review, you had the opportunity to jump up a step for a year. Well, the reason why I thought that was a bad system personally is that say I'm set to go to a step three this year, but I got a good performance review. So, you're going to bump me up to a step five or step four.
Well, step four is supposed to be at your 10-year step. So, am I stuck at step four now from year three to year 10, in which case I'm at that step for an extended period of time with at point I lose my incentive to stay uh because now I've got to double the period in which I'm going to see the next bump
that's there. uh plus that I also feel leads to budgeting uncertainty which this is another goal of this type of a scale is so we know how much we're going to be paying in the next year in the next five years 10 years and down the line if people stay so we can better plan and project that way um so adding a
um person getting a the mayor would would do any performance reviews for department heads so I have have an understanding of where those could fall if someone bumps up but the department heads oversee their non-union staff underneath them and that's the 32 other employees that are in here too.
And so that could lead to I think the budget's going to go up by this much one year but then if someone gets a good performance review and bumps it qualifies for the next step then that bumps up even further and now we're left trying to find the money in the end. Um so that's why that hybrid system I felt created more of a mess than a reliable
system which is what we were trying to go for. Following up with that too you're talking about someone bumping up a step and then being stuck at that step for a long period of time. Also in the ordinance is the ability to start someone else at a higher someone do a higher step. How is that going to be addressed for that situation? Are they is it just going to be that short
period? Are they going to be there for the entire length until they hit the actual year mark or is do they start at year two or year five or wherever it may be? The um the timeline between the steps is where the key is on that one there too. So for instance, the ordinance says that if an employee comes in with requisite education, training and experience was the language that is included in the
city charter. Um they can bump up to what I propose as step two. The way that this is written is you go from step one to step two on your first year anniversary of service. Step two to step three is your next year's anniversary of service. So even
if you are, you know, waiting out that extra time, it's a lot less time than if you're going from step three to step four, which would be a three-year window, or step four to step five, which would be a fiveyear window. So, so for
instance, if you're a two-year employee, you're at step three under this position. You get a good performance review during your third year. So, you're at excuse me, during you're about to start your third year. You're at that step three rate. You get a good
performance review. So, now you bump up to step four. Well, you're at your third year of service, but you don't bump up to step five until your 10th year of service. So the reason I said step two for an increase that's there is because at that point you're really only waiting a matter of 6 to 8 months to see that
extra increase that's there rather than the full longer period that's up there too. So that's why the ordinance was written that way. Thank you, Councing I'm thinking through the this performance, you know, we talked about performance base and been in business
for years and what would prohibit us from say each step each year that you did your performance review, you get if you max out on your performance review, you get a the full step or you get a third of
the step or you get two/ird of the step based stopping your performance. To me, um, you know, I think performance evaluations on a year-to-year basis are super important to make people feel feel like they're achieving, you know, the goal setting that starts at the
beginning of the year and makes them feel worth it's worthwhile work. Um, and just a thought, I mean, and and maybe an idea of something that we probably should be looking at as opposed to just saying, "Oh, you stayed here for the year, so you jump up." Just my just my
thought. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, it's, like I said, certainly a good thought. Like I said, I just don't know how that would be implemented into the ordinance themselves. When the ordinance says this position, this step, I don't know how we'd get around doing that. It's the same reason why, um, when compensation has been changed in the past. So, for
instance, um, I'll use an example. Under the previous administration, there was a hire that was made where the administration felt that the person didn't have the same requisite education, training, experience as the person who left the position beforehand. Um, and then uh
gave the person an offer at a number lower than the ordinance to find out that that person was then due all back pay. Um, and the council had to vote to change the ordinance at that point to if that was to follow and the council had to vote whether or not to change that. Um, and the council didn't vote to change that and keep the pay as it was. So that person had to be paid that
amount with the requisite back pay that they should have been from the first start of employment. I feel like that would cause us to run into a system like that unless the ordinance was changed again on that annual basis based off of those performance reviews that's that's there. But then at that point,
while we have a range between the steps that we could look at at that point in there, um I I just I wouldn't know how that would operate with the legal legalities that we would have to follow with that versus what you know the flex more flexibility that exists in the private sector for the business sector.
Council B. Yep. Thank you, Mr. President. Um when the way the ordinance has been originally presented, the concern I had at the time was with the mayor being able to hire at the second step. When
does when does the person get the third step? And that was the purpose for the amendment that that I put out there to say, okay, the person waits two years and does it. If you begin to talk about allowing the mayor to hire uh at higher
steps based on somebody's experience, the same issue arises and I think we then have to have it have an amendment in there that just says okay he can do it and then this is when the next step happens. my um
in a different community. My experience was that there was a lot of confusion unless it was clearly stated when when the next when the person began to get a next step that fell within the normal pattern. Um, if you didn't spell that out, there was an assump. They would
always assume they got it sooner than what the administration thought and then there would be some bad feelings and there would be adjustments and then when that adjustment was made, the next person was not happy because they didn't get the adjustment and it just was not a good thing. So, I think as we move forward, if if we
choose to do this, there are some things that we can we can put in there to just clarify. Um, somebody earlier made a comment about you know, having to vote this every year. And the truth is, if if we're giving a cola every year on these
on this uh grid, then we will have to be voting uh a new grid for every budget year to say, all right, if we're doing 2% then then there's a 2% adjustment on the grid itself. What I have seen is
could be a second um vote that we take that spells out where each position is in the next fiscal year within the grid. So you would be saying, okay, this year it's they're they're here,
you know, they're at step three and then next year we would pass something that says they're at step four. And because we're doing it on date of hire, there would probably have to be a date when an effective date. Step three through this date, step four on that gets a little complicated, but I
think it could be done in terms of of public disclosure to say, "Okay, here's here's how we're doing everybody." And it it just doing it that way makes it clear um for everybody. I'm also going to say it
makes it a lot easier for the city auditor to have a piece of paper that says, "Okay, here it is." And when somebody comes in and says, "Well, it should be this." Well, this is what they voted and if and if it's different, then you've got to talk to the mayor and and change it. Thank you, council.
Uh, council Donald, for the just at that point, you mentioned the call with Council Brooks, the numbers, the projection numbers. Did that include a cola for every years that we're increasing? No. Is that something that we can get provided as well? Sure.
Um, I certainly can. Um, I would just note that the cost of living adjustments do change year to year. Pretty standard standard standard is normally 2%. Do 2%. So, something do the 2% and see the number. I just want to acknowledge the past couple years we've done threes, we've done two and a halfs, we've done two. So, I just want to make sure that we
I'll provide the 2% but just know if you look back it may be different than 2% in some of the past years. This is projection. So, as stated too is obviously people may may leave and coming in lower steps. So, numbers can fluctuate. Y. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, um, we've
had you in the hot seat, Mr. Mayor. Come back to you, but I'm going to turn this back to us since it's our meeting on that that idea. I I hadn't thought of this either until tonight, and I'm curious to see if anyone else has thoughts on this initially, but uh, you know, as a teacher, obviously,
we revisit our grid every 3 years is when our contract typically gets renegotiated. This currently doesn't have that kind of language. Is that something I mean I guess I'm of the opinion that that is something we might want to include in this. Um obviously we have the effective
start date potential planned in here but we don't talk about and I and I think it's something you know as the counselor said that if we're going to do a cola every year we could take a vote on this every year. I think that's something we have to decide before we finalize this. So and you know obviously we're just just coming up now. Now, I know I'm
putting us kind of on the spot here, but I just think, yeah, I'd be curious to know if anyone else has a thought on that. I don't I I don't know if there's pros or cons to a year versus two years or three years waiting to revisit it, but I think it's something we have to think about and I'm curious to see anyone else
has any thoughts. Thank you. Uh I think it's I think it makes sense to add it in there as a thought. Like I think it's again this is a good discussion and I'm I'm really you know glad that we're having it and I think that is something that we could we definitely need to consider because to
council Brooks's comment I think that's it's clear that in in full transparency because there's a lot of nuances to public um business. Okay. And that's what we have here. That's why we have to go through all this the way that we go
through it is because these are public dollars. These are public positions. Um, we have to know where everything is going. And I think revisiting it every year or two years, three years, however we would maybe decide to do it moving forward makes sense for that because it
shows that we're not just doing something and just kind of going, "Okay, this is how it's going to work." It does answer questions actually a lot easier and it does um help anyone justify whatever it is they make. I mean, it's just an explanation for it. Um, so I do think that we should consider something
like that and um, you know, I want to thank the council for bringing it up because I think it's a really good point. Uh, and I to me a vote on some type of um, each year on a grid or a matrix or whatever it is that lists it all out. I
mean, to me, it's the check and balance of what we do here. It's a presentation and it's an approval and that's what it comes down to. And we have to consider that with any new proposal. Um, this one's just too important to not do it in my opinion. So, thank you,
counselor. Questions, comments? Councelor Heath. Uh, thank you, President. Um, Cormier. Um, this goes back to a comment that was made earlier. Um, it was you were said something about the um part-time local inspector.
Um, are they included? Be um I'm sorry. The packet explains that part-time local inspectors are included because unions only cover full-time roles. Um suggesting potential restructuring of current union roles. So my question is
is does this open a pathway to split full-time union roles into part-time union roles? Um, and could this be interpreted as a I don't know, a strategy to undermean union projections?
Uh, no. Um, no. In fact, the the union that that falls into uh only formed about a year ago and the city and the administration did not launch a um the the how unionization works and the the cliff notes of the legal ease of it all is the
union members have to vote whether or not to unionize. the employer has the right to um basically campaign against the unionization. We filed with the uh Department of Labor Standards a notice of non- opposition uh for that matter. So um meaning that we weren't going to
fight them unionizing and we were going to work with them collaborative towards the collaboratively towards their union contract. That union contract says specifically these types of positions are covered in that contract with only full-time positions covered in that. And
that's not just for the inspectors union, but that's also for the ASPA union that's here in city hall for our non all employees here in city hall for the clerical staff and custodial staff. Uh that goes with the uh shelter attendants at the animal
shelter. they aren't included in the teamsters union that oversees the animal controls because they're only part-time employees. And there's a clause in that contract as well that says part-time employees are excluded from that. And those those clauses also do have mentioned that it's based off of city need and necessity for performance of
the functions. Um so this isn't meant as a way to circumvent going around a union. Um otherwise if we had an opposition to the union, we would have filed a notice of opposition for when the union organized uh two years ago. This is mainly if out of necessity we don't have someone filling a local
inspector position which for which we have two uh here uh in the city currently based off our current budget amounts. Um buildings still have to get inspected otherwise projects get held up unnecessarily and things just have to move forward. So if we couldn't fill that full-time position at that last
minute resort we can hire as a part-time position. But if we do have to go through that route that is already spelled out in that union's contract, we have no mechanism by which to actually hire that person because there's no legal mechanism to pay that person. So that's more as a safety net uh that's
there, not a deterrent or a way to work around a current system is to make sure that we have all of our ducks in place from plan A through plan double Z. That way if we end up down there, we've already got something in place so we can just hit go rather than have to catch up like we've had to do with several other positions in the past where we've had to
come for ordinance positions for uh ordinance changes for a position because something wasn't working one way or there was a last minute change that came up or something like that happened. We'd already have the system in place. So there'd be a lot se uh seamless and smoother a transition there. Okay.
Thank you. are the comments questions. Counc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm going to go back to something we talked about earlier just and I apologize, but I was still thinking about history of how this all came to be and do projections by the
time you got to enterprise. So, could you just go back just the quick small part? What exactly does the general law say enterprise money can be used for as you were discussing? Um so thank you Mr. President remember that um the enterprise laws the the general laws of
the commonwealth say that the enterprise funds can be used towards the benefits improvements and operations of the enterprises themselves. Uh for our enterprises it's the golf water sewer solid waste removal and landfill closure accounts. Those are our five enterprise
accounts. The golf enterprise can only go towards the operations of the golf department. Solid Waste covers the curbside pickup for both trash and recycling. The landfill closure, excuse me, curbside pickup for trash recycling and the transfer station uh that's over
at the old dump. The landfill closure is solely for the closing of the old dump. And then water and sewer is the water and the sewer because there are some people who are on water but septic and vice versa. You could have the potential for otherwise. It's not common, but it's the the the ability to do so is there.
Um, so those can only go towards those items. What the Emerson case, uh, Emerson v. City of Boston, I believe is the full sale, but everyone just calls it the Emerson case. So I have to check the actual citation itself. Um, states that the percentage funded or the items
funded by that enterprise account can only go towards the benefits of those rateayers, not the taxpayers as a whole and vice versa. because you don't want to subsidize something from something that someone else is paying just a benefit that they're not receiving is basically what it is. Now, there are
some things that are listed in that case in which in a e situation or a situation where the financials in one are so bad free cash and certain tax dollars can be used to subsidize the ordinance to get it back the enterprise to get it back into the black. You can't get the the
general fund budget back into the black on the back of the enterprise account. have to justify documentedly how much money is what the money in the enterprise is being put towards particularly for us for indirect costs we have to you know say how much time we think the IT director is working on the computers at the water treatment plant
we have to talk about how much time we think the DPW director and the city engineer and the GIS coordinator are out mapping the system our contractors really oversee the plants themselves uh so our viol only oversees the chemicals that are issued in the treatment of the
water and the wastewater system, everything in between and the the water getting from that treatment facility to people's houses and to the businesses in the community, the waste water getting out of those locations into the wastewater system to our wastewater treatment plant is
actually overseen by the city and outside the scope for those contractors as well. Uh so that's why you know a third a third a third was proposed for those positions is really that's how much time that they're accurate actually actually going through evaluating the life of the pumps evalu uh the pumps the
pipes the um while the Violia oversees the injections of the chemicals we purchase those chemicals so really working with the contractors to see how much is needed to be purchased which is why uh at the one of the June meetings this year you saw a bunch of uh retained earnings
appropriation request for chemicals is because that's something that we bear on our end and based off of the director's projections working with those contractors. Um so to answer your question, there's no set percentage uh that's there. It's if you can document to the department of revenue standards
how much time and resources is being put into the overseeing of those enterprises. If there's no other uh no issues with this through you Mr. chairman. Then is there any breakdown like the other breakdowns we talked to of which salaries are coming through? You know,
we have the overall numbers council journal out pointed out um when we were talking about the the snapshot there. Is there that breakdown of how much of that total number is going to the golf or the sewer DBW director and engineer um just
to see how that's breaking down. Yeah, we have Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we have that. Um, certainly, um, really just taking the line items that are in the budget and putting them together in one document, which I'm more than happy to do so you can see how much is coming from each. Um, for the
majority of the, uh, items that you have in the spreadsheet, uh, for you, you know, uh, for the enterprise, at least for, uh, water and sewer, uh, for the three positions that I mentioned here before, it is, you know, a third, a third, a
third. Um there's other breakdowns in that the director of public health receives compensation from the general fund and the two other enterprise accounts that uh he oversees with the landfill closure and the solid waste enterprise account as well. Uh but um
there's some other positions that are in there that are certainly covered. And then we have we always have the indirect breakdown cost there too. I will say in our indirect break uh cost spreadsheet because chapter 70 and chapter 71 require that the school department have a separate budget voted on by the school
committee that then the bottom line is approved by the city council. they are actually included in the indirect cost sheet because their portion of reimbursement general fund for the um retirement benefits for the health insurance and all that other stuff is
actually budgeted for in their budget and then considered also a almost like a semi-enterprise account even though it's paid for out of the general fund. So when you look at that spreadsheet you will see school department in there. They're not their own enterprise but they have to be accounted for separately because of the way the general laws are written. Um but those are all documents that we have internally that I'm happy
to share with the council. Thank you. Further questions, comments. I'll jump back in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, if um if this is approved, right, when we did the budget, we amended out the amount that covered the salary increases
um and through, you know, the chair, Mr. Mayor, is there going to need to be then a supplemental budget? Is that being developed? And is there a schedule for that? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um yet to answer your questions in order uh yes there would have to be a
supplemental budget because the money is not currently appropriated in the approved budget for that year. Is that currently being developed? We have internal spreadsheets for it but it all depends on what the council approves in the end. So that really if something is developed it's really kind of up in the air until there's a final action by
the council on this. uh and really uh by the end of September would be where it would fit within the requirements of when we have to work on our books because this is based off of the revenue projections that we have for the fiscal year. And as we move forward through the
fiscal year certification process with um new growth, certifying the LA4, the LA3, um certifying local receipts, uh the tax recap uh process, free cash certification, and all of that, we really can't get to some of those items.
The ones that are related to real estate, we're good. But the other items we really can't get to, especially the tax recap sheet, until we certify this is how much we're anticipating to getting in revenue. And we're not going to be certified saying that we're going to get a certain amount over what we've actually budgeted for through the DOR.
We really have to get as close to balance as we can on that tax recap sheet. Uh so that's why really that end of September deadline is really the latest we could go before we're up against the wall at that point because we have to finish those processes to get everything submitted through the state. If you remember uh
last year and the year before, we had our tax recap hearing in November because we had our revenue set beforehand. We really can't move forward with that process because one of the line items on that recap sheet is what is all of your intended revenue breakdowns in terms of taxation, local
receipts, uh excise taxes, and it breaks down revenue by category there. And that's where the projections differ than what was appropriated right now. So that's where we have to kind of realign them there by that end of September deadline. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. So, I mean, my
understanding would be that we'd have to All right. There's a salary ordinance. We've got two readings on it or two votes on it. Um, for the second one, we'd also have to pass an appropriation to cover the cost
of it. And that would have to be done before we can set a tax rate. Correct. Mr. President, uh, the order in which either an appropriation is made or the ordinance is passed is whichever order that the council would like to take,
which one up before the other. Uh, but yes, an appropriation would have to be approved by council vote. Appropriation has to be approved before we can set a tax rate. Correct. Yes. And so if we if we delay all of this, it just delays setting a tax rate. Correct. Correct. Is there is there an October
1st deadline because this is an election year? We have and we have to approve uh salary changes before October 1st or is that just the mayor's position? Mr. Mayor, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the general law, that's any elected official position in the Commonwealth.
It's the elected officials. It's the elected officials, not the not the non-union, not the appointed, not the hired. Um, for the sake of clarity, the general laws state that anytime that there is an election year uh taking place, any changes in compensation to
that elected officials compensation uh must take effect at the beginning of the next term and cannot take any effect any earlier than the beginning of the next term, but must be voted on by October 1st of that election year to make sure that you're not voting on a pay raise for whatever candidate wins or to favor one candidate over the other. Um the
budget for FY26 and which case also for FY27 at this point does not include any changes in pay for any of the elected compensations for the mayor, the council or the school committee, but rather uh does not include any raise in compensation for those uh positions. Okay. And I and I was asking the
question not because I was considering raises for the elected officials. Yeah, I was asking it more from from this department head or order or the non-UN ordinance making sure that we're not caught in a position where we miss a deadline and that cannot do anything until after January. That's all. Thank
you. Further questions or comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, through to the council. So, I'll just wrap up sort of my other my big points here with I mentioned talking about my amendments. Um, I think I just want to make sure I state since I haven't had a chance to
yet. You know, part of this is again wanting to maintain some of that authority the council has in the process of approving these salaries or revisiting this process uh and not seating all or or any too much of that power. I'd say um with some of them it
it you know I do look to include internal time within the city or external time and experience um and so upon hiring the mayor may subject to council approval approve a new department headed level employee to begin at a step commensurate with their education training experience or
similarly the mayor subject to council approval may consider years of service with the city and termination of the employees step if the years of service were in substantially similar position there's some language that that may cover some of that. It may not be as expansive as I'm necessarily looking
forward. Um, and I just want to make sure that, you know, similar roles in and out of the city are accounted for, that longevity and longstanding time with the city is accounted for if somebody moves laterally or up or down.
um and that it's really just level to level and there's some flexibility for the the mayor and the the city council to negotiate um within that process. If we are in a desperate situation and someone comes to us and they've been a commissioner, as we were talking about earlier, in another city or town for
many many years, we don't want to be hamstrung necessarily if we can't get them at a comparable rate to where they might be now if our grid allows for that. Um, you know, the other example I can sort of give you is that within the schools, you know, if a teacher moves to another district, say they've been teaching here in Gardener for 10 years,
they go to Monty Tech, they can use the years of service to negotiate where they land on Mont Tech's grid. Similarly, if a teacher subbed, maybe they are a part-time sub or a long-term sub currently here in Gardener. So thinking of equity across the the city as best we can, you could use that. You could make
the case, you know, start me at year two because I have this time and this experience and the principal may or may not want to do that. Um, so I just I just don't want to limit our applicant pool and I want to make sure we're not limiting our power, the mayor's power, hiring the best possible people for the
job. Thank you. Oh, thank you, Mr. President. Um, and I think with that being considered, with what councelor Haggman said with new hires, the intention here is also to keep our long-standing,
you know, good um, employees and having them be able to put their years, I mean, that's really what a lot of this is about. Um, their years towards what they should be getting paid. And so, that's obviously a huge consideration with kind of putting the full package of each position together. Um, and so it's it's
really is it's it's got to be the perfect storm as much as we can get there with the new hires and keeping the people that we do have in those positions um who have been great at their jobs and loyal to the city and those other things. And I just want to recognize that that is really
challenging. I think we all have a really challenging job to do that. Um, and I just wanted to thank the mayor for answering our questions and um, kind of being in the hot seat this evening, but that was what was the uh, you know, knew this was going to be a discussion. We needed to get more information. I
appreciate you answering my questions. There's a lot to think about here. This is a lot of information. You provided us with hundreds of pages of information, but I mean I I know I have a lot here that I want to consider moving forward. Um, and you know, I think that the it's
clear that there was work put in by the working group. Um, there's work put in by the mayor and now this is the work of the council. I just there was there was a lot of new information here tonight. I know councelor Mack had also um submitted questions to the clerk who has
distributed them here this evening that we all have in front of us as well um that I'm sure that you will receive as part of the meeting. So, you know, I just wanted to I appreciate the counselor's thought in um hiring and retaining, but it's also about keeping who we have here, and I think we did
acknowledge that as well. So, thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. President. Um just to um something also off of councelor Hegland's comments and council's comments on the end, too. Just for transparency and clarity sake, too, the only other union that has something like that besides the teachers for the city
is the police department. Um, in which case, uh, if someone comes to us from another, um, full-time police department, you can carry over your years of service from that previous department into that step scale system that they have in their union contract, unless you were a police officer at a college campus, in which case you can take over half the time at the time,
just acknowledging the differences between a college police officer versus a municipal police officer. Um, but that's the only other instance in which we have something like that in the city besides the teachers, is at the police department. Further discussion? That's very good.
Leading to a motion. Um, and then thinking that I think there's been a lot of great things said tonight. I want to reiterate like councelor journalis said, you know, questions are good. I we I know this council definitely asked a lot of questions we have in my time here um and in subcommittees. So, I just want to make sure everyone again knows too that
you know questions are okay. Um, you know, we're just asking things that we might have that our constituents might have. Uh, just trying to be thorough and this has been months if not years in the making. And I I like the direction we're heading in uh in supporting not only our current and longtime employees, but
making things hopefully better for the future as well. I am also glad we've taken this time because as was mentioned, we had some omitted positions we've caught. Um you know, being the English teacher I am, even in the current way it's formatted, we have, you know, sections one, two, three, four,
five, and step six. I don't know why the language changed. Um, I did get confirmation on one position. Uh, the assistant treasurer, while the date is accurate, there's still a question mark next to that position. So, there's things to clean up. Um, and so I think
it's good we're going through this process and taking this time um to find these formatting issues, to find these bigger, more important things as well, the whole spectrum of it. Um, and so I think to keep this moving and to keep the ball rolling, I would move to send
this to finance committee for further review and study to take some of this stuff in uh, and then have something to present to the full council. Second by councelor Higgland and by councelor Heath to send finance committee for
review. This is an uh, committee of the hall. Can we do that? I'm just asking, can we do that? Yes, because it's basically like it's like a subcommittee meeting. The committee the whole is a subcommittee of
the city council and so we can vote to send it somewhere else. Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion by councelor Hland second by councelor Heath to send the finance for further review and study to report. All in favor?
Opposed? Motion carries. Move to adjourn. Motion by councelor Brooks, second by councelor Hedley to adjurnn. All in favor? All opposed. Motion carries.