CLAREMONT — The fate of next year’s city budget is up in the air after City Council voted down separate proposed union contracts for firefighters and the Teamsters union local this week.
At the outset of the discussion Wednesday, Mayor Dale Girard said he couldn’t support the increases contained in the contracts, which city officials said were aimed at bringing wages closer to the going rate around the state.
“I understand what we are trying to do but I think this is a pretty significant hit,” Girard said. “If we approve both union agreements we are basically putting a quarter million dollars onto the tax rolls in one evening.”
Both contracts needed a two-thirds majority, or six votes, to pass. The contract for the firefighter union failed, 5-4, at Wednesday’s meeting and for the Teamsters only three councilors — Chris Cogswell, Chris Irish and Nick Koloski, voted for it.
The proposed contract for the Teamsters Union Local 633, which has 10 members, including three fire captains, the city clerk, children’s librarian, a maintenance supervisor and communications records manager had a first-year cost of more than $92,000. In the subsequent two years the contract expense would be $45,000 and $46,000 respectively.
The contract for the 12-member firefighters union that the council rejected had a first-year cost of almost $146,000 with the second year at $63,600 and the third year at close to $68,000.
Human Resources Director Shannon Thibodeau noted that firefighters worked without a contract from 2007-2013 and since 2022, annual increases have been below annual increases in the consumer price index, a measure of inflation.
A chart presented to the council showed Claremont firefighters, with an average of nine years with the department, have a total compensation of $84,000 a year, which is below the state average of about $102,000. The chart also listed the total firefighter compensation of 15 other municipalities and Claremont’s wage package was last.
The proposed first-year increase would put Claremont about in the middle of the communities listed and increases the next two years would keep it in the middle for total compensation.
“The goal is not to get us to Portsmouth ($105,000); it is to get us to the midpoint so we can compete in the marketplace and retain workers and not have them poached by other cities,” Thibodeau said, adding that is her goal with other contracts.
“Making the change in FY ’27 immediately puts us at the mid. If we had started lower, it would not get us to the mid at the end. We wouldn’t remain at the mid if we did a flat line (even increases over three years.)”
Thibodeau said during the negotiations it was understood “this is a one-time thing” because firefighter pay has fallen behind.
Girard, William Limoges, Andrew O’Hearne, Wayne Hemingway, William Greenrose and Assistant Mayor Deb Matteau voted against the Teamsters contract.
For the firefighters pact, Matteau, Greenrose, Cogswell, Irish and Koloski voted yes, with Girard, O’Hearne, Limoges and Hemingway opposed.
Some councilors opposed to the contract said they supported the overall raises, but wanted the increases spread out more evenly over the three years.
“These guys deserve the raise,” Limoges said. “My problem with it is the way it is presented and the schedule of payments.”
Limoges suggested the city renegotiate to spread the increase out equally over the three years.
“If you even everything out, I have no problem with it,” he said.
Before the vote on the firefighters contract, City Manager Nancy Bates explained that the contracts were structured with large payments in the first year because “next year we have two other unions, DPW (public works) and clerical unions coming up for negotiations.”
Overall, she said, “if you combine the percentages over time, it levels the budget more to do a bigger hit this year than to spread it out over the next three.”
That explanation led Greenrose, who initially wanted to see both contracts with level annual increases, to change his vote in support of the firefighters’ contract.
Irish supported both contracts and wondered how much more in attorney fees the city will spend.
“We are willing to pay attorneys but not our own people,” said Irish, who joined the meeting by phone.
Irish said the parties all negotiated in good faith and it is wrong for the council, “unpaid volunteers,” to say no.
“That is not our role,” said Irish. “Our role is to do what is best for the city as best we can. Sometimes you have to spend money to get good people.”
Irish said the city has “holes in its staffing now” and rejecting these contracts will only make it worse as employees leave for better salaries in other communities.
“I don’t know how the council thinks shooting ourselves in the foot is going to help when we will lose people, let alone can’t hire new people, and then wonder why the city is adrift because we don’t have enough staff. The world we live in is expensive and we can’t expect the city to be immune from it.”
The rejections will make it “very difficult to have a passable budget by the end of June,” Bates said, noting it could take one or two months to bring back new contracts.
“We will schedule a meeting and go back to square one with negotiations,” Bates said.
Patrick O’Grady can be reached at pogclmt@gmail.com.
