Fredonia residents decry proposed 2025–26 budget as trustees set hearing on vendor local law

Residents and other attendees at a Village of Fredonia public hearing on the proposed 2025–26 budget urged trustees to explain recent borrowing, curb spending and consider consolidation as the board moved to schedule a separate hearing on a proposed local vendors law.

The most immediate issue for many speakers was the proposed tax increase tied to the draft budget. "I'm looking all of you and I obviously know these taxes are going up. You're driving me out of my home because pretty soon I can't afford to live there anymore," said Donna, a resident during the public comment portion. Kathy Furness said she expected an increase she could not afford: "I'm not sure how much this is going to increase my taxes... I imagine a $100 a month. I'm not sure where you think I'm gonna pull that out of. It's ridiculous."

The draft budget figures presented by staff showed total revenue across three funds of $13,109,011 and expenses of $12,784,546. The presentation noted a property tax rate of $61.29 per $1,000 of assessed value, an increase of $24.43 per $1,000 that the village estimated would amount to about $540 on an average household tax bill. The water rate was proposed to rise to $7.60 per 1,000 gallons with a minimum quarterly charge of $30; sewer rents were proposed at $8 per 1,000 with the same $30 quarterly minimum. Capital projects called out in the presentation included roughly $142,000 in general-fund capital, $210,500 in water-fund capital and $57,500 for sewer capital projects.

Several speakers asked the board for a clearer accounting of recent cash-flow decisions. "The village board needs a written explanation of why the village was required to borrow $825,000 in January of this year," said Sam Dreyo, who urged the trustees and treasurer to provide a written explanation to help residents understand the cause and steps to prevent a recurrence. Robert Scott and other commenters pressed trustees on personnel and contract costs, including union contract provisions and multi-year commitments, and suggested either cuts or consolidation of services.

Some commenters framed the budget problem as long-running. "It's consolidate, dissolve, or receivership," said Bill Sliwa, a resident who said the village faces an "existential" fiscal crisis and urged trustees to consider consolidation and other structural responses. James Linden urged trustees to scrutinize pay increases for department heads and questioned prior spending choices and whether grants were pursued effectively.

Trustees also noted a legal constraint raised during the meeting: the state controller's office and village attorney told the board that under the Municipal Home Rule Law a local law reducing compensation for elective officers during their term is subject to a mandatory referendum. As a result, the budget numbers were adjusted to return the mayor's and trustees' compensation to their prior amounts after an attempted reduction: "Under municipal home rule law... local laws that reduce the salary of an elective officer during their term... are subject to mandatory referendum," a trustee read aloud during the presentation.

After public comment, the board considered and approved a resolution to schedule a public hearing on a proposed local law (proposed local law number 5), which would add chapter 198 (Vendors) to the village code. Trustee Syracuse introduced the resolution and Trustee Twitchell seconded it; Trustees Wandel, Syracuse and Brockler voted "Aye," and the resolution was approved. The resolution directs the village clerk to publish notice and states the proposed law was on file in the clerk's office.

Speakers repeatedly urged greater transparency and more frequent financial oversight. Sam Dreyo recommended the board, treasurer and possibly a municipal auditor meet at least twice monthly to monitor cash flow and suggested a hiring freeze and tighter use of overtime to avoid adding staff costs. Other speakers recommended pursuing grants and regional funding sources, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, as one attendee noted Chautauqua County's eligibility for ARC assistance.

The meeting concluded with trustees agreeing to meet again next week to review the budget and explore further changes; the board chair said that making changes would not necessarily require an additional public hearing. The board closed the hearing and said the formal budget adoption remained scheduled for later action consistent with legal notice requirements and any required hearings.