top of page

County Lands at 1.72% Tax Rate; Approves Funds for Towns, & Food Insecurity

4 hours ago
4 min read

A group of volunteers prepares meals at Second Chance Foods in Brewster, to be distributed to pantries and other mechanisms throughout the county that distribute meals to those in need. The organization will receive a bump in funding – although not as much as it had hoped for – in the 2027 budget. Photo courtesy of Second Chance Foods, Inc.
A group of volunteers prepares meals at Second Chance Foods in Brewster, to be distributed to pantries and other mechanisms throughout the county that distribute meals to those in need. The organization will receive a bump in funding – although not as much as it had hoped for – in the 2027 budget. Photo courtesy of Second Chance Foods, Inc.

By Holly Crocco

The Putnam Legislature last week adopted a 2027 budget with a tax levy of $32.6 million, which equates to a 1.72 percent tax rate.

“That is the lowest tax levy since 2007,” said Legislature Chairman Dan Birmingham, R-Southeast, during the Oct. 27 County Legislature meeting.

As part of the spending plan, the Legislature unanimously approved the moving of $5 million into subcontingency, as part of a proposed $10 million to be shared with towns and villages in 2027 and 2028, for municipal public works and infrastructure.

This funding is separate and aside from the $6.5 million that was already moved to subcontingency for municipalities for 2026, as proposed by County Executive Kevin Byrne in early October.

Discussion on which proposal(s) to act on is expected to take place during this week’s Legislature meeting.

According to Legislative Counsel Heather Abissi, the motion makes the funding available “no matter which proposal you guys choose.”

Also as part of the budget adoption, the Legislature unanimously approved moving $150,000 from surplus into subcontingency for the purpose of fighting food insecurity.

Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, who put forth the resolution, said the county needs to develop a consistent coordinated program of its own, building on the work that the outside agencies have already been doing.

“I know that we have a food coalition – I’d like to see that reinvigorated,” she said. “But what I’m beginning to understand is… it’s not necessarily the food pantries that need the money. It’s those food organizations that distribute the food, that actually get the food from the farms to the food pantries that need the support.”

Legislator Laura Russo, R-Patterson, agreed.

“I think we need an all-around plan that’s going to help everybody where the money’s needed,” she said.

In a divided vote, the Legislature also opted to increase funding for Second Chance Foods, Inc., of Brewster, an agency that rescues unused food and turns it into prepared meals for the less fortunate. While the organization requested $70,000 in 2027, the original budget allotted only $20,700. Last week, that number was bumped to $35,700.

“Second Chance Foods serves so many departments in Putnam County – Community Action Partnership, Office for Senior Resources, all of the food pantries…” said Montgomery. “They’re doing the work that we’re not and I think they need a little more support.”

Legislator Jake D’Angelo, R-Carmel, voted against the appropriation.

“If this was putting more food in mouths, I’d agree, but what it more so sounded like was offsetting costs,” he said, referring to a prior committee meeting during which Second Chance Foods made its case. “If they’re going to increase the amount of food going into people’s mouths, I could see that. But what I don’t want to do is lower their operating costs for them to provide the same amount of services.”

Legislator Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, said that while she doesn’t like “seeing outside agencies coming in asking for more and more and more with their hand out wanting to be served,” she does see the impact Second Chance Foods makes. “They provide food throughout the county serving all of our Putnam County residents,” she said.

Legislator Erin Crowley, R-Mahopac, also voted against the allocation, noting that Second Chance Foods’ budget has been increased each year, and that the agency may get a piece of the $150,000 that had been approved moments earlier.

“I don’t feel like we’re shortchanging them at all,” she said.  

Russo was the third “no” vote for the budget appropriation. She noted that, while she supports the mission and has even volunteered with Second Chance Foods, she was disappointed by their “huge ask” this year.

Montgomery said that Second Chance Foods received an additional $15,000 in 2024 when a “food insecurity emergency” was declared, as well as a “meager” $5,000 bump in each 2025 and 2026.

“Feeding people who are hungry is not a bad thing,” she said. “Feeding people who are hungry is not throwing money at a problem… We can’t just withhold this money from an organization that is solving this problem for us, because we don’t have a plan.”

Further, she said the organization moved to a larger location to better be able to operate.

“It costs a lot of money and they don’t live in a tax-free, not-for-profit kind of setup,” said Montgomery. “They pay full property taxes, full rent. Whatever their expenses are, they don’t get a break like a lot of our other organizations get in this county.”

Legislator Tommy Regan, R-Brewster, said that if the county is truly facing a food insecurity crisis, then the dollar amounts they are talking about are not enough.

“There seems to be a contradiction here that I can’t wrap my head around,” he said. “I’m not feeling crisis out of those numerics.”

However, he did note that, “In no other field do we just continue to fund something without any directives, statistics, quantifiable measures that we’re doing some good. Are we doing any good by continuing to fund these things?” asked Regan, who encouraged his colleagues to consider developing a consortium to better address the issue in the future.

Now that the Legislature has approved the 2027 budget, the county executive will have an ability to veto certain parts of it, which would go back to the Legislature for discussion.

 
 
 

Comments


bottom of page