The Village Board discussed creating a public survey to guide the 2026-27 budget, aiming to distinguish between fixed costs and discretionary spending. Officials emphasized that while resident input will be valued, the survey is advisory, not a binding vote on tax dollars.
An early article, drafted by AI before our automated verification gate existed. It has not been machine-checked against the meeting record and may contain errors.
Published under the editorial responsibility of
Matthew Broudy,
who is accountable for every article on this site.
●Village Manager Bryan Healy directed to draft a "Budget Priorities Survey" based on models from Timmins, Canada.
●Board requested a one-page "budget primer" accompany the survey to explain the difference between Village, School, and Town taxes.
●Draft survey to be presented to the Board for review at a January work session.
●Board discussed potentially collaborating with the Police Advisory Committee to avoid "survey fatigue."
●Trustees debated asking residents to rank hypothetical spending (e.g., new recreation vs. tax relief).
CROTON-ON-HUDSON – As the village prepares to draft the 2026-27 budget, the Board of Trustees is exploring ways to cut through the noise and hear directly from residents about their spending priorities. At a work session on December 4, the board discussed launching a "Budget Priority Survey" to gauge public opinion on how tax dollars should be allocated.
The Board of Trustees in session during discussion of a budget priority survey for the 2026-27 budget.
The discussion comes as the board grapples with the reality that while residents often have strong opinions on taxes, a significant portion of the village budget is already spoken for before the board even opens a spreadsheet.
Village Manager Bryan Healy explained that while the administration looks to engage the public annually, a survey would need to be carefully designed to manage expectations.
"There's also things that actually could be impacted... we would just be dealing with more the smaller subset of the budget that is actually that we actually have the power to move the funds as the board deems fit," Healy said. 1:07▶
Healy estimated that approximately 40% of the budget could be considered "discretionary" or movable, though he noted that "discretionary" is a loose term. The majority of funds are tied up in non-negotiable contractual costs such as employee salaries, benefits, LOSAP (Length of Service Award Program) for the fire department, and police pension systems.
"Unless we break the contracts, those are staying how they are," Healy said. 2:32▶Clarifying the Tax Pie
A major theme of the evening was the need for public education. Board members emphasized that a common source of confusion for residents is the distinction between village taxes and school taxes, which make up the lion's share of a property tax bill.
Mayor Brian Pugh championed the inclusion of a "budget primer" alongside the survey to explain these mechanics.
"We definitely want to have maybe a one page budget primer on there so folks understand what the budget is. We're not the school," Pugh said. 4:12▶ "Here's the budget. Right? Like that education point of... where does 75% of your taxes is actually school tax."
The Board of Trustees in session during discussion of a budget priority survey for residents.
Village Attorney Joshua Subin agreed, noting that confusion often arises because residents receive tax bills from multiple entities. "I always see confusion on the public's part as to the percent of the budget that is the village as opposed to the school as opposed to the town," Subin said. 10:24▶Not a Plebiscite
While the board wants resident input, Mayor Pugh was clear that the survey would function as a guide rather than a direct mandate.
"We want to say... that a survey is not a plebiscite. We're not asking... we can't make the decisions on the budget that way, although that can influence our decisions," Pugh said. 5:05▶
Pugh added that the survey is intended to give the board a "headwind" of public opinion before they sit down to finalize the budget details. "We have to make the decisions essentially at this table when our sleeves rolled up when we're looking at a 300 page draft," he said. 5:27▶Ranking Priorities
The board spent significant time debating how to structure the questions to get useful data. Trustees noted that surveys from other municipalities, such as Tucson, were less relevant due to size differences, though the example of Timmins, a smaller community in Canada, offered a promising template.
Trustees discussed the pros and cons of "forced rank" questions, where residents must prioritize one item over another, rather than selecting multiple options.
"If you had something with 20 different options, the number one option might have 12% that might win in a landslide. But that's useless, honestly, data," Pugh said. 7:33▶The Board of Trustees in session during discussion of the budget priority survey.
The board also wrestled with how to frame hypothetical spending scenarios, such as asking residents if they would prefer a hypothetical $100,000 be spent on new recreation programs or returned to the fund balance to lower taxes.
The board directed Village Manager Healy to prepare a draft survey using the Timmins example as a model. The draft is expected to be returned to the board for review at a work session in January.
Source documents:
●*Resolution 1*: Authorized the Village Manager to send a formal letter to Metro-North Railroad regarding severe safety and access concerns at Harmon Yards. Passed 4-0 (Trustee Politi absent). No dollar amount attached.
●Resolutions Failed
●Applications Reviewed
●None (this was a Work Session, not a regular meeting with Planning Board/ZBA items).
●Public Comments
●None recorded during this Work Session.
●Reports
●Arts & Humanities Advisory Council: Provided an update on the village artist banner program.
●Village Manager (Bryan Healy):
●Delivered an update on the ongoing shoreline resiliency study.
●Reported on the Con Edison rate case settlement.
●Announced the conclusion of the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Program.
●Led a review of existing intermunicipal agreements for shared services, including a discussion on establishing a new agreement with the Croton-Harmon Union-Free School District.
●Board of Trustees: Continued reviewing guidelines and procedures for village advisory boards and committees, and reviewed drafts of the social media policy and Board of Trustees rules of procedure.
Croton DPW boss urges board to let bigger cities test new tech first
●Board and Committee Appointments: Approved 8 volunteer appointments to village boards with terms expiring between December 2026 and December 2028. Vote: 5-0.
●Resolutions Failed
●Applications Reviewed
●Public Comments
●None noted in the minutes.
●Reports
●DPW Garage Site Visit: Superintendent of Public Works Frank Balbi joined the Board to discuss their recent site visit to the Department of Public Works Garage.
●Bond Rating Presentation: Financial advisor Beth Ferguson presented an update on the Village's current bond rating.
●Draft Budget Priorities Survey: The Board reviewed the draft survey intended to gather community input for the upcoming fiscal year's budget.
●Recreation Advisory Committee: The Board discussed recent recommendations presented by the committee.
●Proposed Local Law: Discussed a proposal to create a local office of the Village Auditor.
●Resolutions Passed: None.
●Resolutions Failed: None.
●Applications Reviewed: None.
●Public Comments: None.
●Reports: None.
●Executive Session: The Board met from 9:06 PM to 9:42 PM to discuss matters of personnel involving specific individuals. Motion to enter made by Trustee Simon, seconded by Trustee Nicholson (5-0 vote). Motion to adjourn made by Trustee Nicholson, seconded by Trustee Slippen (unanimous). No formal action was taken.
●Motion to enter executive session for personnel matters (4-0 vote at 8:44 PM).
●Motion to adjourn executive session (unanimous vote at 9:16 PM).
●Resolutions Passed
●Resolution #243-2025: Rejects the single bid received on September 4, 2025, for the installation and commissioning of a solar canopy at the DPW Garage. Passed 3-0 (Trustees Politi and Slippen absent). Dollar amount: N/A (project to be funded by NYSERDA grants).
●Resolutions Failed
●Applications Reviewed
●Public Comments
●None recorded.
●Reports
●Superintendent of Public Works Frank Balbi provided an update on general department operations and ongoing projects.
●Village Manager Bryan Healy and the Board discussed an expansion of the residential parking permit system targeting Hastings and Young avenues.
●Village Manager Bryan Healy and the Board discussed a proposed Length of Service Award Program (LOSAP) for Croton EMS.
●Financial Audit Accepted: The Board received the FY2025 audit report from PKF O'Connor Davies, resulting in an "unmodified (clean) opinion"—the highest possible rating.
●Revenue Performance: The Village generated nearly $23 million in actual revenues, about $1.1 million more than budgeted and a 4% increase over the prior year.
●Expenditure Increase: Spending rose approximately 5% to $20.3 million, driven primarily by a $400,000 increase in health insurance costs and rising retirement benefits.
●Debt Strategy: The Village transferred nearly $4 million from the fund balance to the Capital Projects Fund to pay for improvements upfront rather than issuing debt, saving on interest and issuance fees.
●OPEB Liability: Auditors highlighted a $39 million liability for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB), a non-cash accounting figure that does not impact the day-to-day budget or bond rating due to state legal restrictions.
Trustees reject biased $36,500 village court study proposal
execute an agreement with OMNIA Partners, Public Sector, Inc. for the cooperative purchasing of supplies and equipment.; Review of Proposed Legislation to Create a Rental Unit Registry.; Discussion on the Addition of Alternate Members to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. — plus 2 mo...
Experimental project: croton.news uses AI to generate articles from public records. Content may contain errors. Please report any inaccuracies and check our corrections log.AI-assisted experimental site — may contain errors. Corrections
Community Discussion
Be the first to comment on this story.
Sent to the editor for review
This is what you asked us to forward to the Village Board:
An editor reads it first. Once it goes, your comment here will show a ✓ Forwarded to the Village Board mark — that is your confirmation.