County Scrambles to Get $$ to Towns; May Be Too Late for 2026

By Holly Crocco

Putnam County government has a surplus of money, and the towns and villages want some of it.

The County Legislature last week debated whether there is time to act on County Executive Kevin Byrne’s proposal to distribute $6.5 million to the municipalities by the end of 2026, or if they are better served by distributing $10 million to the towns and villages over the next two years.

During the Oct. 20 Budget Committee meeting, Legislator Toni Addonizio, R-Kent, introduced a motion to add $3.5 million to Byrne’s proposed $6.5 million, but move the timeline to 2027-2028, with $5 million being distributed amongst the municipalities each year.

“This proposal offers a balanced, fiscally responsible approach recognizing the needs of our local governments while ensuring taxpayer dollars are distributed fairly and thoughtfully,” she said.

Legislator Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, asked if some of the funding could be released in 2026.

“Every town and village in the county wrote us a letter and had a press conference asking for $6.5 million for this year, not $5 million” the next two years, he said. “I believe we’re hoarding this money. It’s been in subcontingency for months. The towns need the money this year, not next year and in 2028.”

However, Legislative Counsel Heather Abissi explained that, for the sharing to not run afoul of state law, there has to be an intermunicipal agreement in place and contracts with the towns, which – realistically – can’t happen by the end of the year.

Legislator Jake D’Angelo, R-Carmel, said there’s nothing that can be done about the fact that it’s too late in 2026 to provide relief this year, but that the county should move forward to fast-track the funding for 2027.

“I think the towns need the money,” he said. “Ten million dollars is more than $6.5 million. I’m also frustrated that, A. they can’t get the money this year; and, B. we couldn’t have figured out a way to maybe use the $6.5 million that was put into subcontingency this year.”

“We wanted the $6.5 million to go to the taxpayer, but that didn’t happen,” added Legislator Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls. “Let’s appropriate this the proper way so it can help the towns.”

Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, said the proposal is not a new concept, as Addonizio introduced a similar idea last year.

“Let’s not make anybody suffer any more,” she said. “This (shouldn’t be) about who’s going to release the $6.5 million and get credit for it, and who’s going to release the $10 million and get credit for it.”

However, representatives of the towns and villages throughout Putnam showed up two days later, at the Oct. 22 Audit Committee meeting, to urge the county to take action.

Finance Commissioner Alexandra Gordon kicked off the conversation by reiterating that for money from the 2026 budget to be used, a local law would have to be drafted, an intermunicipal agreement initiated with each municipality, and complete plans approved for the use of funds.

“Since it’s an intermunicipal agreement, it has to be a project that benefits the town and the county,” she said, noting that the county has to spend the funds by Dec. 31. “If not, the money will roll back to the fund balance” – and not roll over into 2027.

Southeast Highway Superintendent Michael Burdick encouraged the county to put forth the $10 million for 2027 and 2028.

“Money cannot be spent by the end of this calendar year,” he said. “There’s nobody who has any kind of project that we can get shovel-ready and get it done by the end of this calendar year… It’s really easy to spend a couple million dollars in the middle of paving season – that’s not a hard thing to do. But it’s really hard to spend $500,000 in 60 days.”

Putnam Valley Town Supervisor Alison Jolicoeur agreed.

“I think it’s not feasible to create an intermunicipal agreement that benefits all of us, that this is somehow going to be done in the next month and a half,” she said, further suggesting that the county meet with the municipalities to see what their needs are.

Kent Town Councilman Shawn Boyd had a different opinion. “If you guys have the money to give, give it to us,” he said.

Boyd said the Town of Kent could easily spend the money on a highway truck, renovations to the Kent Historical Society building, plans for a senior center, or updates to the water districts.

“You can never give us enough money, and we’ll spend it all,” he said.

Cold Spring Mayor Kathleen Foley said there has to be something that can be done or a purchase that can be made – such as fuel oil – that would benefit all the towns and villages, as well as the county.

“I don’t want to lose what you’ve set aside for us in 2026,” she said. “I want to talk about sustainable, annual, every year money coming back to us in a fair amount… This is bananas – us arguing back and forth about a pittance.”

Cold Spring Village Trustee Andrew Hall echoed that sentiment, noting that the funds due to the village would make up more than 3 percent of its budget.

“That’s a huge help to us in terms of staying within the tax cap,” he said. “I think that’s a really important message to be able to take back to the towns and villages – that there is some consensus and some will to move in that direction, because it will help a lot of people.”

Legislator Laura Russo, R-Patterson, said the county owes it to residents to deliver tax relief as efficiently as possible.

“ I think it’s something that, if we can get it done, I guarantee that every supervisor will be here tomorrow morning” with the required plans, she said. “When this idea was first proposed, we knew it was not a concept that could be carried out, but the money was put aside for some sort of rebate program anyway. We, the Legislature, failed our community and our residents by not acting on it all year long.”

Legislative Counsel Abissi repeated that it’s unlikely – but not impossible – for whatever projects each municipality wants to pursue to be executed and funds spent by the end of the year.

“A lot of this comes down to the nitty gritty – what we’re doing, what it’s being expended for,” she said. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way… Make no mistake about it, the towns are going to get the support they need with both these proposals, the difference is one is with a gun against their head of time; the other is with the flexibility of starting now and continuing on into two years.”

The committee approved both proposals to move to the full Legislature this week for a vote.