Warren County committee backs sending shared‑services plan with Glens Falls to full board amid staffing shortfalls

Warren County officials unanimously agreed to forward a proposed shared‑services intermunicipal agreement with the City of Glens Falls to the full board for consideration, but members emphasized the plan depends on the county’s ability to hire and train additional inspectors.

County staff presented the proposal to the Facilities Committee on June 23, saying the five‑year agreement would transfer responsibility for fire‑safety and carbon‑monoxide inspections and for enforcing building codes in Glens Falls to the county. The county highlighted a target start date of Jan. 1, 2027, but stressed that start is contingent on recruiting and certifying staff.

The county’s initial estimate included startup costs — largely for vehicles and salaries — that raised first‑year charges to roughly $326,000 in total program costs, of which the city’s share would be about $154,000 and the county anticipates earning about $172,000 in revenue in year one. Staff said the fiscal picture should stabilize by the third year and be cost‑neutral by years four and five.

Charles, the county’s building‑codes department head, told the committee the department is currently short two inspectors and would need to hire three additional certified inspectors specifically to carry out the city workload; staff said the net hiring need could be four people once vacancies are filled. He said the county has placed job advertisements and received only two applicants so far.

Committee members pressed staff on recruitment and training. Staff said the state provides the required certification training at no cost, that the training runs in programs starting in July and August with completion in the fall, and that new hires will require on‑the‑job mentoring. Several supervisors said private‑sector wages for construction trades make municipal recruitment difficult.

Members also asked about legal mechanics. Staff said the proposal would use an intermunicipal agreement under state executive law (not separate county legislation); under state rules the city could opt out later, at which point the county would assume full responsibility.

Given the hiring uncertainty, the committee voted to forward the IMA to the July full‑board meeting with contingencies and caveats in the packet noting workforce and training requirements. The motion passed to send the item to the board; one member recorded an opposition during the roll call.

Next steps: staff will continue recruitment, refine the IMA with the city’s attorney and present the draft IMA and contingent budget scenarios to the full board in July.