Board members question supervisor’s plan, budget changes
CLIFTON PARK, N.Y. » A proposal by the town supervisor to consolidate two departments was stymied last week when three members of the Town Board questioned its necessity and the effects it might have on town employees.
The verbal exchange between board members Amy Standaert, James Whalen, and Lynda Walowit and Supervisor Philip Barrett at the Board’s Oct. 19meeting was an unusual sight for this normally composed and unified board.
With continued shortfalls in the revenue being produced by the town Transfer Station and the looming retirement of a longtime department employee, Barrett unveiled a plan to consolidate the Transfer Station into the town’s Building and Grounds Department.
In his presentation of the proposed changes, Barrett reminded the board of the ways the town has worked over the years to lessen its subsidy of the Transfer Station.
Noting his operational philosophy of seeking ways to reduce costs, streamline operations, remove silos between departments, and invest in equipment, Barrett said going forward with the reconfiguration was a way to accomplish three of the four items.
His presentation included specifics like eliminating the Transfer Station permit system in 2021-2022 and switching to a household garbage bag purchase system, closing the Transfer Station on Wednesdays, redeploying its employees on that day to Buildings and Grounds, and enhancing the pay of three town supervisory staff for handling the increased responsibilities.
When the floor was opened to comments from the Town Board it became obvious almost immediately that none of the other four Board members had received word of the proposed changes prior to a 5:30 p. m. email. Questions from Standaert, Whalen, and Walowit followed and the heat in the room rose exponentially as they continued.
“You want to combine two departments and put more work on Mr. Clemens (Buildings and Grounds Supervisor) and Mr. Lynch (proposed Maintenance and Recreation Supervisor),” Standaert asked.
“Yes, the employees and the union are for it. I find if you give more work to someone who’s busy, nine times out of 10 they will not dispute you,” Barrett said.
As the discussion continued Standaert and Whalen questioned the financial computations surrounding the savings from the $97,000 a year salary with the retirement and the proposed $5,000 per year increases for the three affected employees.
“I don’t think eliminating a position and asking our employees to take on more responsibility, knowing how busy they already are; that concerns me a lot,” Standaert said.
In response, Barrett noted hewas around townhall all the time, had his ear to the ground, and was aware of what’s going on, and didn’t think the changes coming with more responsibilities were too much.
“I don’t see where people are maxed out with work,” he said. “This is a great place to work with great benefits. We have no trouble filling openings.”
“I have my ear to the ground too,” Standaert said, “and they [are] struggling. I’ve been here on the Board eight years and I see vacant positions eliminated rather than filled and the work is put into other departments. They are busy.”
Whalen agreed with Standaert and noted that the finances surrounding the reconfiguration didn’t seem reasonable.