The council members highlighted the importance of aligning Gardner’s department head salaries with those of comparable municipalities to prevent turnover and maintain competitiveness. It was noted that Gardner has been historically conservative with money management, which, while generally positive, has led to compensation lagging behind other communities. The proposal aims to rectify this by implementing a salary grid designed to eliminate subjective criteria, but concerns were raised about the clarity of the methodology used in developing this grid. The council sought additional information on the salary study and how its findings informed the proposed changes.

Central to the discussion was the debate over the proposed salary adjustments, including a suggested 4% raise across the board, which some members saw as merely a starting point. However, the working group had initially proposed more substantial increases of 8% and 12%, deemed unaffordable in the current budget projections. This decision was made to maintain employees at median salary levels while establishing a longevity step scale to encourage retention. Questions were also raised about the allocation of salary expenses between different funds, including the general and enterprise funds, and the implications for taxpayer and ratepayer distributions.

Further inquiries focused on the transparency of the working group that handled the salary analysis, consisting of various city officials. The involvement of different department heads in the group’s activities was questioned, as was the methodology used to allocate salary adjustments, particularly for roles like the Director of Public Works. The need for a clear explanation of the salary structure, covering stipends and allowances, was emphasized to avoid confusion in budgeting processes.

Another topic of discussion was the evaluation of taxpayer subsidies related to city employees. The council explored the possibility of incorporating performance-based pay increases to replace automatic step increases. This approach was seen as a way to motivate employees and recognize performance, though concerns were raised about potential legal issues and the risk of subjective evaluations leading to discrepancies in pay increments. The council considered implementing guidelines to ensure clarity in the timing of step increases, especially when hiring at higher steps based on experience.

The meeting also addressed procedural aspects related to salary ordinances and the impact on the city’s budget. A supplemental budget was deemed necessary to accommodate the proposed salary increases, and council members were informed that appropriations must be approved prior to setting the tax rate. The timing of salary changes for elected officials was discussed, with a legal requirement to finalize any adjustments by October 1st of an election year.

Additionally, the council underscored the importance of ensuring that the salary approval process maintained council authority while recognizing both internal experience and external qualifications for new hires. The balance between retaining current employees and attracting new talent was acknowledged as a challenge, with the council emphasizing the need for flexibility in salary negotiations to accommodate experienced individuals from other municipalities.