Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Putnam County tentative budget holds levy flat; leaders plan $6.18M from reserves for capital
Summary
Commissioner of Finance told the Audit & Administration Committee the county could have increased its levy under the NYS tax cap but chose to keep the property tax levy unchanged, using reserves for capital and budgeting conservative sales-tax and investment income estimates.
Putnam County’s Audit & Administration Committee heard the County’s tentative 2025 budget on Oct. 8, where Commissioner of Finance Mike Lewis said the administration opted not to raise the property tax levy despite the state tax-cap allowing a larger increase.
"The increase for the property tax levy is 0," Lewis said, summarizing the executive’s decision to hold the levy steady even though the county’s taxing capacity under the state cap could have been substantially higher. Lewis said the property-tax rate fell from 2.85 to 2.70 per $1,000 as assessments rose.
Lewis presented revenue assumptions the administration used for the tentative budget. Sales- and use-tax receipts were budgeted at $79,050,000; the commissioner described that figure as conservative and said it reflected guidance from the New York State Association of Counties and the state controller. Legislators noted year-to-date collections of about $56.4 million and asked how close that makes the county to the projection.
On investment income, Lewis said the tentative budget assumes $4,000,000 in interest earnings next year, up from $2,750,000 in last year’s original budget. "We should definitely hit our $4,000,000 target next year," he said, citing fixed-income positioning and about $60–65 million in long-term investments.
The tentative plan also relies on reserves: Lewis said the budget uses approximately $6,180,000 from fund balance to support the county’s capital plan and $350,000 for an insurance reserve. A $500,000 retirement-reserve entry was included to offset projected ERS costs driven by market-dependent rate changes; the county expects to pay certain retirement bills in December.
Why it matters: Holding the levy steady shifts more of the near-term funding burden onto reserves and projected non-tax revenues. County officials framed the approach as fiscally conservative, but legislators asked detailed questions about timing and the assumptions behind investment income and sales-tax projections.
Next steps: The committee continued detailed line-by-line review later in the meeting; the tentative budget remains subject to further committee deliberations and final legislative approval.
