Putnam County Legislators PUNT on Vital Sales Tax Sharing Plan

Last night I attended the Putnam County Legislature meeting, and while there was a simply stimulating 20 minute discussion on whether or not the County Executive should sit or stand when addressing the legislature (not a joke), the highlight of the agenda was a discussion about what to do with the surplus sales tax revenue that the county collects.

Table of Contents

• Wait, There’s a Surplus?

• What Putnam County Legislators Support This?

  • Leaning In Support…

• So, Who is Against This?

  • Tax Payers Can’t Fix Infrastructure without the To …

  • Who Joined Jonke in Dissent?

    • Leaning Against…

• What About The Towns?

• Transparency Anyone?

Wait, There’s a Surplus?

Yes. Over the last several fiscal years, Putnam County has earned ~$58,000,000 in sales tax revenue OVER what they originally budgeted for, and are “sitting on it”, to quote Legislator William Gouldman, legislator from District 2 which represents Putnam Valley and the Hamlet town of Secor.

To be clear, Legislator Gouldman is in favor of exploring a way to redistribute this money back to the towns and municipalities, who desperately need it as they are operating on razor thin budgets and have critical infrastructure needs.

To emphasize this critical need, on February 3rd, the Town Supervisors and Mayors of every single town and village that make up Putnam County, signed a letter to the legislature outlining their unanimous support for the county to redistribute a portion of the sales tax revenue the county earns back to the towns and municipalities.

This letter is posted right here:

What Putnam County Legislators Support This?

Legislator Gouldman emphasized his support of the discussion when he questioned the Commissioner of Finance several times about the potential costs of budget items in the future, seemingly to explore what budgetary harm could come from this, and the Commissioner could not provide an answer.

Legislator Gouldman’s point is seemingly that there is little risk of any harm as they would not be redistributing all of the sales tax revenue, but merely a portion of it (towns have requested just 0.5% be redistributed).

Joining him in support was Legislator Nancy Montgomery, the lone Democrat in the legislature who represents Cold Spring and Philipstown. She read a letter from the Mayor of Cold Spring, as well as went through detailed monetary numbers from the budget, as well as from surrounding counties, all of whom participate in a revenue sharing with their respective towns and villages.

Legislator Montgomery also pointed out, in order to counter arguments made from other legislators, that even when the County did NOT have a surplus of sales tax revenue it still was able to fund all of its budgetary obligations. This supported Legislator Gouldman’s belief that there would be little risk for budgetary harm.

Legislator Erin Lee Crowley, who represents a portion of Mahopac as a part of the town of Carmel, was also seemingly in support of at least furthering the discussion and collecting more information of how this could look.

Dan Birmingham graciously excused himself from the discussion as he has a conflict of interest, given that he is a partner at a law firm that represents several of the towns, and Legislator Laura E. Russo, who represents District 4 covering Patterson, remained silent throughout the discussion.

Leaning In Support…

• Legislator Nancy Montgomery

• Legislator William Gouldman

• Legislator Erin Lee-Crowley

So, Who is Against This?

Well, to start, Legislator Paul Jonke, who represents District 6 covering the Town of Southeast, was adamantly against doing this. He acknowledged the surplus, then launched into an odd, and not fully coherent diatribe on what the towns would do with it.

He referenced speaking to the town supervisor of Southeast, his district, and lamented that Supervisor Nick Durante was unable to provide a need for the money.

Supervisor Durante was not present to corroborate Jonke’s version of events, and it should be noted that Legislator Jonke lost to Supervisor Durante when he ran for the Town Supervisor position in 2023.

Legislator Jonke then declared that, if over his no vote, the county did in fact decide to redistribute sales tax surplus revenue, he would need South East to receive the “lion share” because they have a Home Depot and a Kohls, indicating South East provides the bulk of the sales tax Revenue (which is not really how sales tax works, but I’m sure we’ll get into that another day).

Jonke then went on to make an odd car sale analogy and veered off topic on to sales and property taxes at large, which was more appropriate for the next agenda item, rather than what was actually being discussed.

His over arching point seemed to be that he’d rather keep the surplus in the county and then cut the sales tax and put the money, as he put it, “back in the pockets” of the tax payers as a potential future savings.

Tax Payers Can’t Fix Infrastructure without the Towns

I took direct issue with this point when I stood to make my comments representing the public and my legislative district (District 5, Carmel Hamlet and parts of Kent).

I reminded Legislator Jonke that the county continuing to horde the existing surplus does nothing to solve the existing issue that the towns and villages currently have to meet critical infrastructure needs.

I reminded the legislator that I as a private tax payer, am unable to build infrastructure. I am unable to fill potholes, unable clean up Lake Carmel so the tax payers can actually use it, unable to develop vacant land throughout Carmel Hamlet and Kent that has been ignored by the Towns as the private owners of them write them for tax purposes.

I noted that as a District 5 resident in Carmel Hamlet, we are often ignored by our own town government, as the vast majority of the Town of Carmel budget is allocated to Mahopac. In fact, every single member of the Town of Carmel Government is a resident of Mahopac.

Living in the Forgotten Hamlet, we have little to none of the infrastructure and attractions that Mahopac has. Redistributing this money could allow the county to put pressure on Towns like Carmel by requiring the funds to be used evenly across the town, benefitting District 5 in particular, a county district.

This would allow under-developed places in our county, like Carmel Hamlet, to add their infrastructure and economic development, which would in turn add to the sales tax revenue, easily making up any shortfall, if there would even be any, over the long term.

A literal win-win.

Notably, District 5 Legislator Greg Ellner was not present at this legislative meeting (the only legislator not to appear). I noted to the legislature that this was a shame, because across the town and county government, the District 5 legislator is the only representative who can voice the concerns of Carmel Hamlet and Lake Carmel residents specifically.

It’s since been brought to our attention that Legislator Ellner was on a pre-planned vacation 

I was happy to do so on behalf of District 5 Residents.

Who Joined Jonke in Dissent?

Joining Jonke in dissent was Legislator Sayegh of District 8, notably covering Mahopac and Mahopac Falls.

While she was not nearly as direct as Legislator Jonke, Legislator Sayegh was coyly walking the Commissioner of Finance through rhetorical questions she already knew the answer to in order to give the illusion that she was curious of there being somewhat of a budget concern.

She abdicated her time in between the comments of other legislators to walk the Commissioner into seemingly making her points for her, which were about what the County already does to provide for the Towns, that they apparently don’t have to do, but do anyway.

As Legislator Montgomery noted, while that’s great, the County was doing those things anyway, even without the surplus. Why would the County not want to reward the taxpayers by giving their towns vital resources to improve their communities when it has the resources to do so?

Legislators Jonke and Sayegh were the two most vocal critics of the proposal. As mentioned earlier District 5 Legislator Ellner was not present to represent his constituents in such a vital matter, but the presumption based on prior comments he has made directly is that he opposes this proposal.

Also as mentioned earlier, Legislator Birmingham abstained from discussion, but returned immediately after for Agenda Item #10, which dealt with the 1% Sales Tax extension.

Again, while he did not partake directly in the revenue share discussion, he motioned to make amendments to Agenda item #10 which if implemented, would create a Sales Tax cut that would make revenue sharing with the towns all but impossible moving forward, and was conveniently aligned with Legislator Jonke’s earlier proposal.

So while Legislator Birmingham technically abstained, his amendment proposals to the Sales Tax seemingly made clear where he stands on it, which by process of elimination, is in opposition.

Legislator Adonizzio, who represents District 3 and the Town of Kent, only made one comment during the discussion which was seemingly irrelevant in every way to the direct proposal being proposed by the towns, but signaled opposition to it at large by again trying to conflate what the County already does, with what it could be doing in addition.

Leaning Against…

• Legislator Paul Jonke

• Legislator Toni Andonizzio

• Legislator Doug Birmingham

• Legislator Amy Sayegh

• Legislator Ellner

What About The Towns?

In addition to Legislators getting to discuss this, the entire town government of Putnam Valley showed out to make their case for this proposal, led by Supervisor Jaqueline Annabi.

Supervisor Annabi read a prepared statement the made clear the Towns were not asking for ALL of the sales tax revenue, but that any portion of it would provide a huge lift to the town governments whose budgets are already stretched thin, and she specifically mentioned the need for infrastructure investment, a direct rebuke to Legislator Jonke’s unconfirmed claim that Supervisors don’t even know what they want to do with the money.

Following her remarks was Patterson Town Supervisor Richard Williams. He, too, echoed the concerns and needs of Town Supervisor Annabi. He mentioned the burden towns are put under from State Mandates that eat into their budgets, leaving them little left over to make critical fixes to infrastructure.

Legislator Nancy Montgomery also read into the record a separate letter from the Mayor of Cold Spring, Kathleen Foley.

I followed all of these town representatives with my own comments, detailed above, noting that we had heard from the county government on this issue, the town governments on this issue, and that I was happy to provide the perspective of the private tax payer.

Transparency Anyone?

As mentioned earlier, The next agenda item was regarding an extension for the 1% Sales Tax, and Legislator Birmingham offered an amendment, and the Legislators moved to table the discussion until the March 4th meeting. This will tie directly into the Town’s proposal for sales tax revenue sharing.

However, earlier in the evening, as part of the “Rules” discussion, Legislator Erin Crowley moved to make amendments to the legislative manual that codify the rights of the public to give comments on legislative matters BEFORE a vote is taken.

This had notable support form Legislators Montgomery and Gouldman, and Legislator Birmingham seemed to be open to the idea, and Legislator Sayegh also seemed to at least entertain some benefits.

Legislator Jonke seemed to scoff at the idea given that he felt it is something largely done already, and not in need of codification. But as was noted, the discretion to allow public comments is left up to the the chairperson of the committee holding the meeting, and at anytime could choose to deny the public a voice.

Again, I spoke on behalf of the public and noted that I was grateful Legislator Birmingham exercises his discretion to allow the public to speak BEFORE a vote is taken, but that he may not always be the one in the chair. The need for codification cements the rights of the public so that no legislator can decide the public doesn't get a voice, which is what exists right now.

Codification is the key because it ensures the rights of the public and that not government official could unilaterally take that away. Legislator Crowley’s resolutions were tabled for further discussion.