Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board weighs staffing priorities as FY26 gap remains
Summary
During a budget hearing, board members and staff reviewed a prioritized list of proposed new or expanded town positions and discussed tradeoffs — building department admin, police dispatch, EMS/fire staffing and a council on aging hours increase — as the draft budget shows a roughly $250,000 gap between requests and projected revenues.
The Town of Charlton Select Board discussed competing personnel requests and priorities on March 26 as department heads presented their FY26 budgets.
Town finance staff told board members the cumulative personnel and expense requests exceed projected revenues by about $250,000. To help the board prioritize, staff circulated a proposed ranking of positions. After discussion, the board prioritized converting a part‑time Building Department administrative assistant to full time first, then adding a police dispatcher position, followed by an EMS officer (fire), and next the Council on Aging hours increase; the police administrative sergeant and a deputy Emergency Management Director were ranked lower.
Board members said the building department has historically generated fees that offset its staffing costs and that converting the existing part‑time assistant to full time may be justifiable because the department’s permitting workload and inspector scheduling create administrative pinch points. Staff noted building permit receipts have, in recent years, included large one‑time revenues (examples cited in prior years such as Amazon/LNG activity) that can skew averages.
Public safety staffing was discussed at length. The police department seeks both an administrative sergeant and an additional dispatcher; board members and staff observed that an eighth dispatcher helps achieve two dispatchers on a shift (improving redundancy and ability to manage EMD and multi‑agency calls), and discussed whether partial‑year or part‑time hires could defer benefit costs. The fire department’s prioritized request included an EMS officer and a part‑time deputy EMD; the board noted the deputy EMD position is part time (no benefits) and that an EMS officer has ongoing benefit costs.
Council on Aging staffing was debated with an eye toward cost and service tradeoffs: board members asked whether the COA could contain costs by returning to Tri‑Valley meals (no town subsidy) rather than higher‑cost Overlook meals; staff and board members suggested the COA finalize its food survey before the board decides. Several select board members said they would consider funding positions part‑time or delayed start dates (for example beginning in the fall rather than July 1) to reduce FY26 budgetary pressure while allowing staffing later in the fiscal year.
Board members noted some requests could be funded temporarily from non‑recurring revenues or fall back on unallocated free cash, but cautioned against relying on one‑time receipts to fund ongoing personnel costs. The board directed staff to prepare a balanced budget alternative showing the prioritized positions incorporated based on the order discussed and to return with detailed cost scenarios and timing options.
