Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Highway Deputy Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cheektowaga board revisits deputy highway superintendent role as superintendent cites staffing and aging equipment strains
Summary
At a Cheektowaga Town Board meeting, members and Highway Superintendent Rick discussed reinstating a deputy highway superintendent position in a part‑time capacity to provide backup authority for payroll and operations, while weighing budget constraints and alternatives such as using existing foremen or intermunicipal mutual aid.
The Cheektowaga Town Board revisited whether to reestablish the deputy highway superintendent position after Highway Superintendent Rick said the department lacks a reliable backup for signing authority and day‑to‑day oversight when he is absent.
Rick told the board he was out nearly 11 days over the holidays and tried to run the operation from home, and that “I was out almost 11 days, and I’m trying to run it from the bed. It was tough.” He described recurring equipment failures and aging trucks, saying one recent repair cost about $1,500 and took four days, and that the department lost two trucks in one day.
Board members and Rick discussed options ranging from appointing an internal employee with a stipend to hiring a part‑time deputy. Council member comments indicated reluctance to restore the prior full‑time deputy post with full benefits—a position previously budgeted at roughly $90,000 in salary plus benefits—because of cost. One board member suggested a part‑time stipend “around $30,000” as a possible compromise; the highway superintendent said he believed a qualified part‑time candidate could be found at that level and that the department could not sustain adding another full‑time salary.
Why it matters: The highway superintendent’s duties include payroll sign‑off, emergency response coordination, intermunicipal mutual aid and pursuing state funding. Without a backup, the town risks gaps in authority during absences and the superintendent said those absences have required staff to bring payroll to his home in the past.
Key points from the discussion - Backup authority and signing: The board heard that no one in the department has the statutory signing authority to act for the superintendent, and that pulling an existing foreman out of their assigned duties would leave crews unsupervised. Rick said the department’s hierarchy is specialized (pipe crews, ditch crews, etc.) and removing a foreman “defeats the purpose.” - Part‑time deputy proposed: The board discussed reestablishing the deputy title but funding it as a part‑time stipend to fit the 2025 budget. The superintendent favored choosing a candidate from people with highway experience or retirees who can be counted on to fill the role as needed. - Alternatives considered: Board members proposed several alternatives, including using internal staff with a stipend, relying on mutual aid from neighboring towns (which has happened previously), and using shared‑services agreements with the county. Town officials noted an existing shared‑services agreement facilitating intermunicipal help expires at the end of the month unless renewed. - Equipment and maintenance pressure: Rick highlighted the department’s aging fleet, citing multiple breakdowns and costly short‑term repairs. He urged planning for equipment replacement or alternative procurement (surplus trucks from other municipalities) to avoid higher future reconstruction costs to roads.
Discussion vs. decision: The transcript records a board discussion, cost estimates and a direction that the superintendent and supervisor work on draft resolutions and a duty sheet for a deputy position. No formal motion or vote to create or fund the deputy position was recorded in the transcript. Board members asked Rick to prepare a duty list and inventory of equipment and to pursue options; one member offered to work with Rick and draft resolutions to fund a part‑time title if the board supports it.
What remains unresolved: The board did not vote on reinstating the deputy title or on any salary; outcomes and timing for any formal action were not specified in the meeting excerpt. Several board members asked for more detail about the candidate duties, hours and a precise cost estimate before agreeing to any appointment.
Ending: Board members asked Rick to assemble a current equipment inventory and a duty description for the proposed deputy position so the board could consider a narrowly tailored, budget‑conscious resolution at a future meeting.
