Putnam County’s Heated Debate Over Part C Funding

Tuesday night’s Physical Services Committee meeting was anything but ordinary. Legislator Paul Jonke was absent, and in an unusual move, Legislator Addonizio was placed on the committee for the evening. However, she was not officially roll-called in yet proceeded to vote on motions and second them.

The meeting ended in a heated exchange when Legislator Erin Crowley (District 9/Mahopac) attempted to make a motion during “Other Business,” only to be interrupted by Committee Chairman Greg Ellner (District 5/Carmel Hamlet/Kent).

But the real center of controversy was the request for $43,000 in Part C funding, which raised serious questions about transparency and accountability.

The request for funds was presented by Neal Tomann, Interim Manager of the Soil & Water Conservation District. According to the official agenda, the $43,000 was divided as follows:

📄 Official Agenda excerpt confirming salary funding request:

Tomann was invited to explain the need for the funds, and that’s where concerns began to arise.

During the discussion, Tomann acknowledged that a deadline for purchasing seedlings from Cornell Cooperative had been missed, which was part of the initial plan for the funds. He then stated that alternative uses for the $8,000 would be identified, though no definitive plan was provided at that moment.

He then flippantly suggested “maybe some swag”.

Some attendees felt this response indicated a lack of concrete planning for how funds intended for tax payers would be used. The uncertainty was particularly striking given that, just one night earlier, the Putnam Arts Council had been required to present detailed financial justifications for its county funding, which it has received for 56 years without issue.

Tomann also suggested that one potential use could be purchasing promotional materials, which some attendees interpreted as discretionary spending, leading to concerns about how funds intended for conservation would be allocated.

Tomann even suggested Part C funding was for the “misfit toys” of projects, which, if he actually believed, would seemingly indicate a complete lack of what Part C funding is for.

A key point of contention was the request to use $20,000 in Part C funds for salary purposes.

During the discussion, Tomann stated that the funds would help bring his compensation “up to a regional average”, suggesting it was a salary adjustment. However, Legislator Greg Ellner later stated that this was not a salary increase, leading to confusion among both legislators and attendees.

🚨 Important Note on Salary Funding Rules:
According to New York State Agriculture & Markets guidelines, Part C funding is typically used for performance-based incentive programs, conservation efforts, and outreach projects. General salary increases are usually handled through Part A funding.

💬 Farmers in attendance expressed frustration, as according to them, they had not been made aware that Part C funds could be allocated toward salaries, nor were they given any opportunity to apply for such funding for their own conservation-related projects.

An additional concern arose when reviewing official correspondence leading up to the meeting:

📧 March 6 Email from Tomann to Diane Schonfeld (Legislative Clerk)

📄 March 12 Finance Department Memo

⚠️ The discrepancy between these documents, and a March 13th email raised further questions about whether the funds were appropriately categorized, and seemed Tomann neglected to say he intended these funds for salary, and that he knew Part C funds were “to support individual projects or, as in this case, to help satisfy this year’s outreach and education goals”

This also raised questions about whether legislators were given full transparency on how the money would be used.

In fact, the County law department representative at this meeting when asked said they were themselves not clear on this.

During public comment, multiple local farmers expressed concern over the handling of Part C funds:

🔹 Andy Jarrett (Lobster Hill Farm, Brewster)

🔹 Dan Honovich (Ridge Ranch)

🔹 Cassandra Roth (Ridge Ranch)

These comments further fueled concerns about how Part C funding was being allocated and whether proper outreach efforts had been made to inform the agricultural community.

It was Andy Jarrett’s comments that forced Legislators to openly consider the lack of outreach actually being done for Farmers in this meeting.

During the discussion, Legislator Erin Crowley raised concerns that the backup documentation provided to legislators did not contain clear legal justification for using Part C funds for salary.

When Chairman Ellner attempted to justify the request, Crowley pointed out that the explanation was written by Tomann himself and had not been independently verified by legal or financial authorities.

When Chairman Ellner moved on to “Other Business”, Legislator Crowley attempted to introduce a motion under “Other Business”, which appeared to relate to extending the deadline for Agricultural District applications.

🎙️ Before she could fully state her motion, Ellner interrupted asking for a second, refused to allow Crowley’s reading of the motion and then read from a prepared statement from the legal department saying due to ongoing litigation there would be no discussion of the Agricultural District.

Legislator Crowley attempted to offer a different motion, and again was talked over with Ellner telling her she was out of order and did not have the floor. Then the meeting ended abruptly.

1️⃣ Lack of Clarity on Salary Funding

2️⃣ Unequal Scrutiny of Funding Requests

3️⃣ Limited Transparency & Outreach

4️⃣ Meeting Procedural Concerns

The funding request now moves to the full Legislature in April, where these unresolved issues may come up again.

👀 Will the Legislature require more documentation before approving this funding?
🔎 Will farmers get more transparency on how conservation funds are allocated?
📢 Stay tuned as this issue unfolds.