AMENIA — There was a large turnout at the town’s public hearing for the preliminary 2009 town budget Wednesday, Nov. 5. Many who attended said they found various lines in the proposed budget problematic at best.
Dorothy Killmer and Pat Nelligan said they were upset at Town Clerk Maureen Bonds’ salary.
“I think you have missed the good judgment I thought you had,� Killmer said, calling Bonds’ salary “abominable� (it would increase by 10.9 percent to $28,405 if the budget is accepted). “She’s for everybody and she does a lot here that people don’t see.� She ultimately worried that the town “is gonna lose good people all around.�
Nelligan said that Bonds’ salary was “horribly unfair� and that “she shouldn’t be here as much as she is.�
Supervisor Wayne Euvrard, who prepared the budget with the help of his administrative assistant, Dawn Marie Klingner, said the board had a discussion about the town clerk position, and that there was a proposed 10.9-percent increase in her line in the budget.
“We’re trying to do the right thing for the taxpayer,� he replied.
Darlene Riemer expressed concern about $125,000 that was used to rent a construction grader for five years. Tom Werner said his taxes went up a significant amount, although it was ultimately determined to be more of an assessment problem than one concerning the budget. But it was Nelligan who raised the most issues during Wednesday’s hearing.
“My concern is fairness in salaries,� he began, recollecting that during a prior budget hearing former Supervisor Janet Reagon tried to raise her salary and it was railed upon by members of the board, including Euvrard. The salary ended up not increasing at all. In the proposed budget Euvrard’s salary increases from $18,000 to $21,500.
“I don’t think that the new supervisor, given the environment that we’re in, should increase his salary over 19 percent,� Nelligan said. “That’s just an opinion. Everyone else is being asked to take around 3 percent, and there are certain people who aren’t getting any increase.�
Euvrard replied that Reagon had tried to raise her salary from $17,000 to $30,000.
“It was outrageous,� he said, adding that if she had instead asked to go to $21,500 it would not have been an issue. Euvrard also quoted her as saying, “until somebody sits in that office they won’t understand the number of hours we put in.�
While acknowledging the 19.5-percent jump, Euvrard reasoned that “the good thing is that I do try to control spending.�
He noted that the Supervisor Personal Services line item had only gone up a tenth of a percent ($179 increase), as opposed to the approximately $40,000 increase from 2006 to 2007 and the $15,000 raise from 2007 to 2008.
Nelligan was then concerned with the difference between the Amenia and Wassaic fire departments’ appropriations. It is proposed that Amenia be given $159,700, while Wassaic would be given $192,625.
“Why is Wassaic’s so much higher?� Nelligan asked.
In the years past, the fire commissioners gave Wassaic an amount, and it was put into the tax for that district, Euvrard said. “Wassaic has been more, being that the district they cover is larger. Somehow they’re organized differently.�
Euvrard acknowledged that Wassaic’s appropriations would increase by approximately $20,000 according to the preliminary budget, but said he wasn’t sure what it would be used for.
“I’ve been told by the fire commissioner that if they stay under $200,000 they don’t have to answer to us,� Euvrard said.
Nelligan finally questioned the budget line, which proposed to allot $7,500 to Euvrard for personal services, and for his work on the budget.
Euvrard explained that as budget officer, he is also listed as director of finance.
“That does cover working on the budget, but it also covers working with the bookkeeper every single month. It’s not just budget officer,� Euvrard said, adding that the $7,500 would be split between himself and Klingner, but he refused to specify how much Klingner would receive. He also added that as of that night he had only taken a partial amount of the money allotted.
“The state has it set up so that every line isn’t listed,� former Supervisor Arlene Iuliano said. “Those of us in the past did our job for very little. I didn’t ask for a raise after many years. But that doesn’t mean that right now things should be that way.�
Councilwoman Victoria Perotti said that she felt “the budget officer should go back to $5,000 from $7,500.�
Councilwoman Vicki Doyle agreed, and added that the budget officer’s line “should be delineated up front so it’s clear and open.� Splitting the budget officer’s personal spending line 50/50 has worked fairly well over the last year, She said.
Euvrard concluded that he had “tried to be as fiscally conservative as anybody,� saying that he “decreased appropriation of spending by $114,000. I’ve never seen a 7-percent reduction in spending before. I’ve tried to be as cost-conscious as anybody. Everything said and done, everyone’s looking at an 8-percent increase in their tax.�
Nelligan finished by agreeing that Euvrard has “done an excellent job at keeping expenditures down, but that the supervisor did not get an increase last year and should have. What’s fair is what everybody else gets. Is there any reason why it shouldn’t be across the board?� He offered his opinion that the supervisor’s salary should be raised to $19,500.
