Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Contracts Budget Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays action on telecommunicators' pay increases amid appropriation dispute and budget overspending concerns
Summary
The committee reviewed a memorandum of agreement with AFSCME covering public‑safety telecommunicators that would reclassify positions and provide retroactive pay increases; members expressed concern about whether funding is available because of ongoing litigation over vetoed budget items and noted broader county overspending in prison overtime.
The Erie County Finance and Personnel Committee considered a memorandum of agreement and ordinance amendment to implement pay and classification changes for AFSCME telecommunicators (911 call takers) but did not approve the measure amid unresolved funding questions.
Human Resources staff summarized the agreement as a reclassification and pay adjustment for the telecommunicators: a 1‑grade reclassification that the HR presentation described as a 6% increase for reclassification plus an additional 9%, for a total increase of 15% above the 3% general wage adjustment implemented on Jan. 1. HR said the agreement is signed by AFSCME and retroactive to Jan. 1 to help with recruitment and retention.
Council members and counsel raised a funding issue. The committee was told the underlying 2025 published budget shows amounts for the contract but that the county executive issued a veto last year and litigation is pending over whether those line items are lawfully appropriated. One committee member said the county solicitor's position is that the funds are not currently appropriated and urged legal advice before any payment.
"Absent a supplemental appropriation, I won't support that," one council member said, noting the litigation and the limits on council authority. Committee members discussed options: the county executive could submit a supplemental appropriation to make the funding explicit; departments might use transfers between internal line items (subject to a 10% transfer rule) to cover the cost; or the council and executive counsel could seek an injunction or legal resolution.
Committee members also raised broader budget concerns during the meeting. A finance member described large overspending in the prison budget and overtime: overtime in 2024 was budgeted at roughly $776,900 but actual overtime spending was reported at $2,407,926, an overage of approximately $1.6 million; the prison budget was described as ending the year over budget by about $2 million. Members asked for regular fund‑balance and financial statements to be provided at meetings so the committee can assess capacity for supplemental appropriations and transfers.
Given the unresolved appropriation and litigation questions, several committee members recommended either tabling the telecommunicators' ordinance or seeking a supplemental appropriation from the county executive; no final committee vote was recorded on the contract at the meeting.
