Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workforce Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors question regional workforce budget allocations as county faces layoffs
Summary
Washington County supervisors pressed the Saratoga–Warren–Washington Workforce Development Board’s executive director about the board budget, questioned the county’s $65,000 contribution, and sought a review of the regional allocation formula after recent plant changes raised local need for dislocated-worker services.
Washington County supervisors on Sept. 2025 questioned the Workforce Development Board’s budget for fiscal year 2025–26 and asked for a review of how the Tri‑County allocation splits federal and state workforce funds among Saratoga, Warren and Washington counties.
Gretchen, identified in the meeting as the executive director of the Saratoga‑Warren‑Washington Workforce Development Board, presented the board’s FY 2025 budget and said the line‑item change from the prior year was primarily a salary-and-benefits difference tied to Saratoga County’s civil-service payroll schedule. The board’s finances include staff employed by Saratoga County (the fiscal agent), program funds that flow from the U.S. Department of Labor and the New York State Department of Labor, and local contributions from the three counties. Washington County’s share in the draft budget is $65,000.
Supervisors pressed for clarity about how the Tri‑County allocation is computed and for an explanation of a reallocation request Washington County submitted months earlier to cover immediate dislocated-worker needs after a major employer’s staffing changes. Meeting participants said that allocation formulas are long‑standing, that the fiscal agent (Saratoga County) uses a formula tied to factors such as population, unemployment and long‑term unemployment, and that the board controls internal allocations among career centers. Members asked the Workforce Board to take the following steps:
- Provide documentation of the formula and the data on which it is based. Supervisors said they received little information about the underlying data for the current split and want the board to seek clarity from the state fiscal team. - Reexamine whether one‑time transfers of carryover funds can be approved quickly to address Washington County’s short-term need. County staff said a written request had been submitted months earlier and had not received a final answer. - Explain programmatic tradeoffs if the county’s share supports board administration and whether program dollars (adult, dislocated worker, youth) would be reduced locally.
Board finance staff and the executive director said the allocation and any transfer require approvals across multiple entities, including the board and each county’s finance or law committees, and that some adjustments can take months. Several supervisors said they would prefer an expedited review given local dislocations; others stressed that reallocations could reduce services elsewhere in the Tri‑County region.
No formal vote was taken at the meeting to approve or reject the board budget; supervisors asked the workforce board and the fiscal agent to return with clearer documentation of the allocation, responses to the pending one‑time transfer request, and a plan for how Washington County’s program needs can be met.
