Putnam County legislature fails to override county executive veto of 3.75% sales-tax resolution

The Putnam County Legislature on April 28 voted not to override County Executive DeVito’s veto of Resolution 108 of 2025, which would have set the county sales-and-use tax at 3.75% for Dec. 1, 2025, through Nov. 30, 2028. The roll-call vote to override the veto failed 4-3, leaving the county’s existing 4% rate in place pending any future state action.

The vote came after more than two hours of debate and about an hour of public comment from town supervisors, mayors and residents who urged the legislature either to keep the current 4% rate and share a portion with towns and villages or to return part of the surplus to taxpayers. The legislature also considered written advice from its bond counsel, which warned that reducing the rate could lower sales-tax revenue, deplete reserves and risk the county’s strong bond rating.

Bond counsel Cornelia Cahill told the legislature, in a response read into the record, that lowering the sales-and-use tax “will have no impact on the county statutory authority to issue bonds and notes,” but that sales-and-use tax revenue is a significant county revenue stream. Cahill’s letter noted Putnam’s 2024 collections and budget estimates and warned that a sustained reduction could “have a negative impact on its bond rating and increase its cost of debt.” The letter also said restoring a reduced rate later would require state approval and could be lengthy and uncertain.

Legislators who opposed overriding the veto cited large undesignated fund balances and cautioned about projecting future costs for collective-bargaining agreements, health insurance and state funding cuts. Legislator Paul Yanke said the county holds an “obscene amount” in fund balance and called giving some revenue back to taxpayers appropriate. Legislator Kevin (first name not specified in the transcript) described the quarter‑percent reduction as “meaningful” for some residents and said he would vote to override so constituents would know his position.

Town supervisors and village officials who spoke opposed lowering the rate and pressed the county to keep the 4% rate while sharing a portion with municipalities. John Van Tassel, supervisor of Philipstown, told the legislature, “We have an opportunity. You have a formula in place,” and urged the body to keep the higher rate and allocate some revenue to towns. Catherine Foley, mayor of Cold Spring, said the small per‑town amounts under some proposals were “embarrassing” and added, “You ought to be ashamed of yourselves,” while urging a more meaningful revenue share. Multiple speakers described urgent local needs for road paving, parks, water and emergency services funding.

A summary of the formal actions taken at the meeting: the legislature first voted unanimously to add a…