Planning workload rise leads Rangeley manager to propose second part‑time deputy CEO and planner funding

The Rangeley Budget Committee considered a manager proposal to add a second part‑time deputy Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) and to continue funding a consultant planner to support implementation of the town’s comprehensive plan.

Joe, the town manager, told the committee the planning office recently exceeded 200 permit applications in the fiscal year to date — “the most I’ve ever seen in town,” he said — and that demand shows no sign of slowing. To improve business continuity and avoid service gaps when staff leave, he proposed adding a deputy CEO working regular office hours in addition to the current part‑time deputy (both were described in the proposal at about 20 hours per week each).

The manager said the part‑time add is intended to relieve after‑hours burdens and provide overlap for training and succession planning; he described the change as proactive staffing to avoid being “a couple of weeks” short if a vacancy occurs.

Committee members questioned salary increases and the long‑term implications. The CEO salary line has already increased during the year; participants noted that an hourly raise adopted part‑way through the year would appear as a modest cost in the current fiscal year but scale to a larger annual effect. Members asked for a clearer range and the salary methodology: Joe said the planner/CEO lines were set with attention to the MMA salary survey and market adjustments to remain competitive and limit turnover. The manager cited an example where a current CEO wage was budgeted at about $54,080 for 2025 and that a market‑adjusted, full‑year equivalent could approach the low‑to‑mid $70,000s depending on the full‑year hours and market adjustment.

Some members asked about alternatives, including regionalized planning services and potential use of interns from nearby institutions; the manager said those conversations could be pursued but stressed that local permit demand and continuity needs supported the proposed part‑time overlap now.

Nut graf: The committee did not approve a staffing change at this meeting; members requested a clearer justification showing permit‑volume trends, estimated hours for the additional deputy, and comparisons with peer towns or potential shared‑service arrangements before deciding.

Supporting details: Committee members asked for a month‑by‑month permit count and a written staffing contingency plan so the committee could evaluate whether a second deputy is a sustained need or a temporary response to a building boom.

Ending: The manager said the additional planner consulting time is intended to carry over work on the comp plan implementation and any ordinance drafting that flows from that plan; he will return with permit statistics and cost comparisons.