The Montgomery Town Board held the first public hearing on its 2027 preliminary budget Wednesday. Account Clerk Katie McKnight presented the plan and answered questions from residents and board members.

This year’s proposed tax rate increases are slightly lower than in the past two budgets. They include an 11.1% increase for village residents and a 7.9% increase for town residents.

Budget breakdown
The preliminary budget totals $21,285,901, up $1,512,905 from last year. Allocated expenses include:
• Police department: $6,125,227

• Town hall: $6,983,787
• Highway: $3,435,128
• Special districts: $3,534,440
• Debt service: $1,007,982

Proposed salaries include $100,531 for the supervisor, $22,855 for the deputy supervisor, $19,514 for each board member, $33,967 for each town justice, $98,009 for the town clerk and $106,003 for the highway superintendent.

The tentative tax rate for village residents is $2.78 per $1,000 of assessed value, up from $2.66 last year. A household assessed at $200,000 would pay $556. For town residents, the tentative rate is $10.61 per $1,000, up from $9.95. A household assessed at $200,000 would pay $2,122.

McKnight said the increases are significantly lower than in the previous two budgets. She credited a town-wide effort.

“In 2024 and 2025, I had to come before the public and bring you all very bad news about our tax increases. Two years ago, I explained why we were in the situation we were in and what we were going to do to fix it. We projected that we’d have two years of high increases, and the third year we’d be dropping back down,” McKnight said. “I am very pleased to say that has happened, and that’s not just because of me. That’s because of everyone at town hall, all the department heads, and all the employees. Everybody has been working together to really keep things tight, do what we’re supposed to do, and make sure everything is moving ahead the way we want it to.”

Available fund balances total $795,000 in the A fund, $1,750,000 in the B fund and $436,000 in the D fund. The town will not use the A and D fund balances this year and will draw $300,000 from the B fund.

McKnight said the town heavily depleted its fund balances in previous budgets, leading to major tax increases over the past two years. She said the town will gradually use less fund balance money until it is fully restored.

“This is one of the reasons why I’ve been working on not using the fund balance in our budget. It was heavily used in previous years, which is part of the reason that we got to where we got to,” McKnight said. “We’ve been dropping it and dropping it with the goal of eventually having our fund balance where it needs to be.”

Public comments
Resident Don Berger said he was dissatisfied with the increases and asked whether the town could use fund balance money to reduce them.

“I know you said that you’re happy with the percentage of the tax increase, but I can tell you that I’m not. To me, they’re still high numbers. Why could we not use more of the fund balance to reduce that?” Berger said. “The B fund has a strong fund balance, why can’t we shift some of the money out of there?”

McKnight called the idea “ill-advised” because the A and D fund balances have not been fully restored. She added that the town cannot move money from one fund to another.

“I am happy that we are back down to the single digits, because the last two were rough. I’m happy in comparison to the previous two years, and the fact that we got it down to where I projected we would get it down to,” McKnight said. “We could use the fund balance, but it would be ill-advised to do so. We already have fund balances that are below the threshold where they should be for the A and D funds. If we’re plugging that into our budget, all we’re doing is depleting that fund balance. And then when we actually need money for things, we’re not going to have any. And then the tax rates are going to go through the roof, because we don’t have anything else to pull from.”

Berger also urged the board to adopt a special exemption for senior citizens. He said the cost of living in Montgomery has become too much for seniors, forcing them to move away.

“Something has to be done for the seniors around here, we’re just getting priced out. … I just can’t afford Montgomery anymore if it continues at this rate,” Berger said. “All you have to do is ride around this town and these villages, there’s for-sale signs up all over the place. I believe as a board, you have to take that into consideration. And if that means that you do a special exemption for the seniors, knock it out. You give it to firefighters, you give it to the police, so give one to the seniors.”

Assessment figure questioned

The total assessed value used to calculate both the town and village taxes was $1,529,248,372. Councilman Mark Hoyt said that figure was incorrectly used to calculate the town tax rate because it includes village properties. McKnight said she will review the figure and confirm whether there was an error.

“That’s not the right assessment, you have to do the town outside rural. The assessment for the town outside of the village is 917,402,286,” Hoyt said. “That proposed assessment number up at the top right isn’t right. That’s going to skew the numbers, because you can’t use the same A fund number as you do for the B fund assessments.”

Highway funding
Hoyt also proposed adding money to the highway department for street maintenance, fuel and snow removal. He said the highway fund does not account for inflation, including the cost of fuel and salt. Board members will consider whether to increase the highway budget.

“As far as the highway fund goes, I believe that we have to fund that department a little more. The bottom line I’m coming up with is $211,748; it would bring the street maintenance up $86,748, the shop line up $25,000, the fuel line up $20,000, and the snow removal line up $80,000,” Hoyt said. “I just don’t see how the department can run with inflation. In the preliminary budget, we kept the fuel flat, and that’s just an impossibility. There was nothing added to snow removal for the increased cost of salt.”

The board will keep the public hearing open at a special meeting at 7 p.m. Friday, Nov. 13.