By Rob Sample
Should Putnam County return a portion of its sales tax collections to the towns and villages? It’s an issue that has been debated ad nauseum in the past, and came back around for discussion during the Legislature’s Feb. 19 Audit & Administrative Committee meeting – when many lawmakers seemed to be receptive to the concept.
Legislator Nancy Montgomery, D-Philipstown, argued most forcefully in favor of returning some sales tax revenue to municipalities. In so doing she read a letter from Cold Spring Mayor Kathleen Foley, which outlined municipalities’ need for additional resources.
“At the local level, towns and villages are struggling to finance major capital projects, to repair and upgrade aging, insufficient infrastructure, costs rising year on year,” Montgomery read from Foley’s letter. “But the property cap limits our ability to raise sufficient funding needed for major projects. Sharing the county sales tax revenue with municipalities would provide an important alternate source for project costs and would allow us to keep local property tax increases at bay. That means benefits and savings for our shared constituents.”
Bill Gouldman, R-Putnam Valley, agreed.
“We do have a healthy fund balance here in Putnam County, (but) the towns and villages are really struggling for the infrastructure repairs, services, and everything they have to do on a daily basis,” he said. “If we share some of the sales tax it could be very beneficial to all of us. We are all in the same boat together.”
Legislature Chairwoman Amy Sayegh, R-Mahopac Falls, pointed out that a great deal of revenue sharing already takes place, in the form of shared services such as libraries and emergency services.
“It adds up to about $35 million, and our sales tax (collection) is approximately $79 million,” she said. “On top of the shared services, the county is mandated to provide services to the taxpayer that are not always funded by Albany. We have no idea at this time what further mandates will come down from Albany that we will be required to pay for.”
Montgomery countered that Putnam is one of the few counties statewide that does not have a formal revenue-sharing mechanism. In Rockland County, she said, a portion of the sales tax goes to support town and village police departments. Moreover, local restaurants generate large sums of sales taxes – but they also generate high volumes of garbage, which is a responsibility that falls on local municipalities.
Erin Crowley, R-Carmel, said the concept of revenue sharing is popular with constituents.
“In a survey done by the county executive of 822 residents, 591 of them pushed for property-tax alleviation, 156 pushed to give it back to the towns,” she said. “Either way, whether it’s relieving property tax or giving back to the towns, I think it’s important that we recognize what the people have chosen.”
Paul Johnke, R-Brewster, called the survey flawed. “That is the least scientific survey I’ve ever seen in my life,” he said. “There’s nothing that stops somebody from voting a hundred times.”
Further, he said the discussion reflected a false divide between the county and municipalities, since everybody’s a taxpayer regardless of where they live in Putnam.
Commissioner of Finance Michael Lewis cautioned that further pressure exists on county revenues – such as the need for government to improve its “human infrastructure.” He indicated that the county is now trying to catch up with peer organizations in salaries and benefits, to better retain county employees.
Toward the meeting’s end, several town supervisors made their cases for sales tax sharing.
“The distribution of county sales tax back to our towns and villages is not a request for something new or unprecedented,” said Putnam Valley Town Supervisor Jacqueline Annabi. “It worked in 2022, the year that sales tax revenue was shared with towns and villages. In Putnam Valley we used those funds to repair vital infrastructure and to create a much-needed recreational space – all without increasing a tax burden on our residents. Half a percent could make a huge difference for towns like Putnam Valley, Kent, or Philipstown.”
“My taxpayers are stressed to the max,” added Patterson Town Supervisor Richard Williams. “We got handed an MS4 (municipal stormwater) program, which I’ve estimated is going to cost the Town of Patterson, when fully implemented, about $250,000 to $300,000 a year. That’s all getting pushed on my property taxpayers.
“There’s got to be another source of revenue for the towns,” continued Williams. “I would love to have a further dialog on that.”
Comments