East Hampton leaders weigh hiring freeze, program cuts and one‑time use of surplus after budget referendum fails

A joint meeting of the Town Council, Board of Finance and Board of Education in East Hampton reviewed options to reshape the proposed fiscal 2026–27 budget after voters rejected the measure, with residents and officials sparring over staff cuts, program eliminations and the possible one‑time use of surplus cash.

Public commenters urged the boards not to eliminate services that serve the town’s most vulnerable. "Standing together for East Hampton's older adults," Eric Rosenberg, chair of the Commission on Aging, told officials, asked them to "retain the proposed upgrade" of a part‑time senior‑center position to full time. Rosenberg cited what he called a 115% increase in membership at the senior center, from 369 members in 2022 to 792 in 2026, saying additional staff would support programming, evening hours and day‑to‑day coordination when the director is not available.

Haley G., a parent whose child had been accepted into the district’s Smart Start program, urged officials to consider the human impact of cuts. "This is not a Smart Start issue. This is not a Bell Ringers issue. This is a budget issue," she said, noting that Smart Start was expected to serve about 18 students and receive roughly $75,000 (possibly up to $97,000) in grant funding; she warned that turning down a competitive grant could make it difficult for the district to regain that funding.

Town staff framed the meeting as an opportunity for the three oversight bodies to identify target areas for reductions or short‑term offsets. One council member (Alison) proposed a hiring freeze that would leave currently unfilled positions vacant and treat the associated salaries as surplus, arguing that the referendum result showed voters want restraint. Several members objected to a broad freeze for essential services.

The police chief said the department currently has two openings (with additional expected retirements) and warned that keeping positions unfilled forces existing officers into extended overtime. "My overtime budget’s overspent by in the neighborhood of $200,000," the chief said, adding that prolonged vacancy‑driven overtime risks further departures and harms officers' personal lives.

Officials discussed tradeoffs between preserving so‑called essential services (police, fire, ambulance, education) and trimming other positions or line items. Members flagged a roughly $850,000 roads line as a candidate for temporary reduction, and one commenter noted that a middle‑school parking‑lot referendum narrowly failed by about 75 votes, prompting discussion of whether to use the town’s projected year‑end balances rather than immediately raising taxes.

Staff and board representatives reviewed projected year‑end balances: town staff reported a projection a little north of $600,000 and the board of education noted approximately $147,000 in carryover. Staff emphasized the guideline fund‑balance target of about 10–12% (the town projection was cited near 12.5%). Several participants suggested using one‑time surplus for capital repairs (for example, HVAC or paving) or pursuing bonding for larger projects, while cautioning that tapping reserves creates a future “cliff” if structural revenue or spending problems remain.

Other topics raised included the transfer station (staff cited an annual operating cost near $200,000 and discussed options such as reducing hours to one day a month or regionalizing disposal), sidewalk‑clearing responsibilities (speakers noted the current requirement is set by town code and suggested mapping which sidewalks are town responsibilities), and constraints on business recruitment such as limited water supply in some areas.

No formal motions or votes were taken. The chair directed staff to prepare updated figures and options for the Board of Finance’s Monday meeting, including: pricing for road and capital adjustments; cost and staffing implications of a hiring freeze with essential positions carved out; sidewalk‑clearing cost estimates; transfer‑station options; and carryover/surplus scenarios to cover one‑time capital needs. The boards will reconvene with that information for further deliberation.