The Town of Southborough Personnel Board on May 2 agreed to pursue local options to address perceived salary inequities for tenured, nonunion employees after a request to accelerate a pay-class study failed at a recent town meeting.

Board members said the town vote against accelerating the study — which proponents had priced at about $25,000 — leaves the board without the outside benchmark they sought and raises questions about how to respond to numerous requests from departments and appointing authorities.

The Personnel Board chair said the failed vote “leaves an item unresolved,” and board members described three practical constraints: the town did not approve the study funding at town meeting, the next opportunity for budgetary action may be the fall special town meeting, and even if recommendations are produced they would likely be budget items for fiscal year 2026 beginning July 1.

Town staff clarified budget mechanics to the board. Brian, a town finance staff member, said end-of‑year balances and interdepartmental transfers are possible but uncertain: “You’ve got some areas that have some money left over. … Whether there would be any money to do anything at that point, I’m not sure,” he said. The board noted there is roughly $10,000 left in its FY25 budget that might be reallocated but several members said they would not use those remaining funds to hire a consultant after the town voted against the study.

Board members discussed nonconsulting options including a targeted “transition plan” to raise long‑tenured staff toward midpoints of their pay ranges, asking departments or appointing authorities to submit specific, evidence‑backed requests, and the possibility of using reserve funds or free cash at a later date if the Select Board and advisory bodies support changes.

No formal vote was taken to change pay rates. Instead the board directed staff to gather data and convene a short follow‑up meeting in the coming weeks to: (1) assemble the list of positions and appointing authorities that have requested review, (2) estimate the number of incumbent employees likely in scope (board members estimated roughly seven to eight positions in the initial bucket), and (3) identify funding options for any recommended adjustments.

Board members stressed the need to avoid delay but also to be fiscally prudent. One board member said paralysis for a year would worsen morale; another said the board must present a total cost and leave budget decisions to the Select Board and advisory process.

The discussion also touched on the recent collective bargaining increases the town approved earlier in the spring (a package board members described as “close to $500,000” in total across multiple unions), underscoring the difference between negotiated contracts and the SAP‑covered, nonunion employees the Personnel Board oversees.

The Personnel Board plans a short special meeting to review staff data and a proposed shortlist of affected positions, then to return with a concrete plan that could include targeted adjustments, a request to the Select Board for budgetary funding, or a future warrant article for town meeting consideration.