Town board reviews tentative budget, proposes 10.95% tax levy increase amid rising personnel and pension costs

The town board met in a special work session to review a tentative budget that, as presented, would raise the property tax levy by 10.95% to cover growing personnel and benefit costs and several proposed hires.

The presenter framed the package as a response to rising mandatory and negotiated costs, saying the town faces higher retirement contributions, health insurance costs and negotiated pay raises. "I feel this is the best I can do," the presenter said, adding that for an average assessment the levy change equates to roughly $50 a year per household.

Board members questioned the headline percentage and its mill-rate effect: they explained the 10.95% levy increase appears larger because of assessment growth, while the mill rate is projected to change by about 4.44 points given higher assessed values. A council member said the board received the materials only shortly before the meeting and pressed for clarity on how the percentages were calculated.

The presenter outlined key budget drivers: a 3% salary increase for CSEA employees, a 4.5% increase for highway staff, a projected increase in New York State retirement contribution (discussed as approximately a high‑teens percentage increase in presentation materials) and a 4.35% rise in health insurance costs. The budget also includes funds to replace several aging town computers with Windows 11–capable machines, with unit costs cited at about $1,100–$1,200 each.

On personnel, the presenter proposed adding an assistant building inspector — estimated at about $110,000–$120,000 in all‑in cost — citing a backlog of expired and open permits and a need to emphasize enforcement. The presenter said enforcement fees exist but are not dramatic and noted a prior rental registration cleanup produced a one‑time revenue boost of about $60,000 under an older three‑year cycle.

Board members probed whether the new hires or enforcement would generate net revenue and whether there were any legitimate recurring savings to offset the pressures. The presenter said staff did not identify significant recurring savings before the meeting. Several board members discussed forgoing raises again as a partial offset; the presenter noted that some members historically had not taken increases.

The board also debated options to meet MS4 (stormwater) compliance needs without hiring full‑time engineering staff, exploring shared services or contracting with an external provider to reduce benefit costs. The presenter said the town had reached out to neighboring East Hudson about shared mapping and MS4 tasks and suggested county coordination to avoid duplicate software and effort.

In public comment, resident Robert Cullen criticized the early meeting time and limited attendance, calling the scheduling "not too transparent," and asked whether the board had prepared budget scenarios tied to a library contribution question that will appear on the November ballot. "I was a little surprised to see the meeting was scheduled five o'clock on a Monday," Cullen said, and urged clearer communication from the library about its funding request.

The meeting ended without a final vote on the budget; a motion to close the meeting carried on a voice vote. Board members directed staff to clarify inconsistent percentage figures on budget worksheets (including retirement contribution numbers) and to follow up on timing of mortgage‑tax and court fine receipts that could affect near‑term cash flow. The board is expected to continue deliberations as staff provides corrected figures and additional analysis.