Skip to content




TOWNSEND — Police Chief Erving Marshall and Lt. David Profit presented the police and communications budgets to the Finance Committee during a question-and-answer discussion on the proposed fiscal year 2007 budget.

”(The communications budget) reflects an increase in negotiated wages, and is estimated based on the Northeast Consumer Price Index adjustments,” said Marshall. “There is also a $150 adjustment in longevity payments based on negotiations as well as an adjustment in overtime commensurate with wage adjustments.”

”I have level-funded the expense portion of this budget, which does not represent the actual need of expenses in this department,” he said.

The FY06 communications budget is $190,291.12. For FY07, Marshall’s figures come in at $197,553, or a 4 percent increase.

Finance Committee members were satisfied with the numbers Marshall presented in the communications budget.

”Town administrator Gregory Barnes asked for level-funded budgets from everyone. When we are done, if there is any money left, we will see what we can do,” said Chairman Joseph Berman.

Marshall then presented the Police Department’s budget, which he said was confusing.

”The salary and wages portion of this budget represents a staffing level of 15 full-time officers, which includes the chief, lieutenant, three sergeants, and 10 patrol staff. The budget reflects an increase in negotiated wages, which is also reflected in increases in college incentives, holiday pay and clothing allowances as well as longevity increase of $250 for one officer.

”The budget also reflects changes in personnel and an increase in overtime commensurate with wage increases,” said Marshall. “Although one of these officers is fully funded at top step with Quinn benefits and other benefits, the realization is that this officer’s salary, wages and benefits will most likely be incurred by the School District under the School Resource Officer Program and the actual cost of this officer will be the cost of a recruit officer without educational incentives, which will show a cost savings of approximately $22,000.”

Marshall said he was able to return money to the town due to loosing two officers in mid-budget year.

”Sergeant Travis Rixford left in mid-year. Sergeant John Johnson’s salary now comes out of Rixford’s line item,” he said. “Rixford was receiving 25 percent towards college incentive, now I was able to plug in only 20 percent for another officer’s college incentive. With promoting Johnson to sergeant, Officer Reidy becomes Johnson in the budget.”

”Officer Daniel Morrison is now gone. I filled his position as School Resource Officer with Officer Kim Rebovich. What happened is the resource officer being funded on paper with that program is Officer Robert Breault, as his name is one the original documents for SRO,” Marshall explained. “This all give us a savings of around $8,000 with the changes I’ve made moving people around,” he added.

Finance Committee member Andrea Wood said, “It sounds like you had the money there, but not the people to put in the positions. Now you are just putting the people in the slots.”

That is exactly what he has been able to do, said Marshall.

”I would not put a recruit at the school for the resource officer. Superintendent James McCormick said the school will pay the salary, we pay the benefits of that officer. I’m not adding staff, just moving people around,” he said.

Marshall’s total figures for the police budget for fiscal 2006 are $1,150,076.17. His FY07 budget comes in at $1,208,604.17.

”The 2007 budget has the overall increase in personnel services and salaries with full staffing of 15 officers,” Marshall said. “When I am fully staffed, there will be zero to return to the town like I’ve done last year, and again this year. I am just looking to be fully staffed.”

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.