Some will see this commentary as harsh. Others, perhaps more accustomed to the patterns and practices of Wilmington politics, will see it as mild.

You can look at most things a half-dozen different ways.

Some will claim that Wilmington’s recent budget process was careful and deliberative, and that statement has a basis in reality. The town board engaged in substantive discussions about various budget line items during successive meetings and by doing so was able to shave tens of thousands of dollars from the 2025 tax levy.

It is also true that the board’s meeting on Nov. 12 was a kaleidoscopic display of impatience and confusion.

The stage was set when a new “proposed preliminary budget” with significant cuts to water department spending was emailed to the town board by the town’s budget officer a week before the Nov. 12 meeting. Then, at the meeting, town Supervisor Favor Smith described those proposed cuts as untenable. With those spending cuts now off the table, Councilman Darin Forbes proposed trimming an even $15,000 from the property tax levy by raising water rates.

“I would like to see this on paper before I vote on it, to be honest with you,” Councilwoman Laura Dreissigacker Hooker stated.

“No,” replied Smith.

Minutes later, the town’s 2025 budget was adopted by a 3-2 vote. It was clear to board members and observers that the town supervisor was not interested in allowing his fellow board members the time necessary to clarify various budget line items or work to further increase non-tax revenues. A budget was adopted, but left unclear or undiscussed were topics such as:

¯ The gap between the expected property tax levy and the tax levy permitted by the state “tax cap;”

¯ The amount of unspent bed tax money in the town’s “fund balance;”

¯ The number of customers subject to the expected water rate increase;

¯ The amount of money the water rate increase would raise;

¯ The necessity of a projected increase in Parks Department wages, despite the loss of a Parks Department employee;

¯ The hours and wages of a proposed new court clerk;

¯ The possibility of increasing non-tax revenues by increasing fees on whole-home STRs.

In the rush to pass a budget and move on, these and other topics were given short shrift.

After the meeting, Dreissigacker Hooker commented, “The fact that the budget was adopted when there were still so many numbers not laid out on paper was very frustrating as a board member. Whether or not the numbers being batted around were factual or hypothetical, it is a board member’s right to advocate for as clear a budget as possible. While asking for time and clarity, the requests were rebuffed and vetoed 3-2.”

“Budgets are meant to be scrutinized,” she added. “And town board members should be advocating for the townspeople they represent, as well as making sure there is a realistic budget that can sustain the infrastructure and personnel of the town. I am sure the two of us were not the only two befuddled at the time of the vote.”

—

Supervisor Smith and Councilman Forbes ran for office pledging to unify a divided community, but in the past year a bare majority of the town board has relied on 3-2 votes to forge ahead with the same agenda that gave rise to much of that division in the first place. This was witnessed yet again at the town board’s meeting on Oct. 30, when Smith and Forbes used four distinct 3-2 votes to advance that agenda.

The campaign pledges of respectful conduct, open mindedness and consensus-based decision making seem long forgotten.

—

A Guest Commentary signed by two dozen Wilmington residents was published in this newspaper slightly more than two years ago (“Wilmington deserves respect, Part I,” Adirondack Daily Enterprise, Oct. 20, 2022). The commentary ends with a call for “attendance at town meetings.”

The article concludes with the following words: “Important decisions will be made in the next several months — decisions that will affect our families for years to come. There is often a busy agenda at these meetings and there is usually time for public comments and questions. People who began regularly attending recently say it has been eye-opening. If you want to see what really happens at these meetings — rather than relying on secondhand news, social media or scattered newspaper reports — please attend, observe and listen.

We need more people to see what is happening.”

Council member Hooker and I did everything we could to keep Wilmington’s tax levy under the tax cap, but many of our efforts were met with impatience or annoyance, and some were simply ignored.

There are a lot of old sayings that still have value, and one of those is “Politics is a team sport.”

That is even true in small towns.

If town politics seems less exciting than it did a year or two ago, that is not because dissatisfaction with the town’s trajectory has disappeared. Nor is it because that trajectory has changed.

If you are upset by your skyrocketing assessment and your increased property taxes; if you are disturbed by the pace and scale of clearcutting throughout the township; if you are worried that your favorite places in Wilmington will continue to disappear, well, you can express your dissent without effect in the comfort of your own home, you can shrug your shoulders and give up, or you can roll up your sleeves and get involved.

This is, and can only be, a team effort.

There is plenty of room on the field.

(Tim Follos is a member of Wilmington’s town board. This is the second part of a two-part commentary.)