The Empire Center’s latest report exposes a growing divide between government compensation and the financial realities facing Hudson Valley taxpayers.
The Hudson Valley has long been known for its beautiful landscapes, historic communities, and increasingly expensive cost of living. But a newly released report from the Empire Center for Public Policy raises a question that deserves far more attention from taxpayers and elected officials alike: Has public-sector compensation become disconnected from the economic realities facing the people who finance it?
According to the Empire Center’s What They Make 2026 report, local governments throughout the Mid-Hudson region paid approximately $2.91 billion in employee compensation during fiscal year 2025–26. That’s billion, with a B. The region’s 36,128 local government employees earned an average of $80,584, compared with a statewide average of $67,037 for local government workers outside New York City. That places the Hudson Valley second only to Long Island in average municipal compensation.
Even more revealing, nearly one-third of the region’s local government employees earned $100,000 or more. Some 318 employees received compensation exceeding Governor Kathy Hochul’s $250,000 annual salary, and 46 earned more than $300,000. These are not corporate executives managing multinational businesses. These are employees of our counties, towns, cities, and villages. And every dollar ultimately comes from the public.
Consider some of the findings. In the Town of Ramapo, police officer Daniel Hyman was reported as earning $421,338, the second-highest local government compensation in New York State. Several other Ramapo police employees earned between $350,000 and $381,000. In Westchester County, Yonkers led every city in New York State with average employee compensation of $120,425. Ninety-four Yonkers employees earned more than $250,000. Meanwhile, Westchester County employees averaged $100,435, with 46.1 percent earning at least $100,000.
The three highest-paying towns in the entire state were all located here in the Hudson Valley: Ramapo, Orangetown, and New Windsor. Police departments in Clarkstown, Stony Point, and Ramapo reported average compensation approaching or exceeding $190,000.
Now, before anyone accuses me of attacking police officers, firefighters, or other dedicated public servants, let’s establish something important. These individuals perform essential and often dangerous work. They deserve fair compensation, adequate benefits, and the support of the communities they serve. But recognizing the value of public service does not mean abandoning reasonable financial oversight. There is a difference between fairly compensating employees and creating a compensation structure that becomes increasingly difficult for taxpayers to sustain. And that difference deserves scrutiny.
What concerns me most is the widening divide between those whose compensation is supported by taxpayers and those who must compete in the private economy to earn their living. Across the Hudson Valley, small businesses struggle with escalating health insurance premiums, workers’ compensation costs, payroll taxes, commercial rents, and regulatory requirements. Employers face difficult decisions about hiring, wages, and whether they can afford to provide meaningful retirement benefits. Many private-sector employees have seen traditional pensions disappear, replaced by 401(k) plans whose ultimate value depends on market performance and individual contributions.
Meanwhile, many public employees continue to participate in defined-benefit pension systems, supported in part by taxpayer-funded employer contributions. Those benefits represent real economic value beyond the salaries reflected in this report. And therein lies an important distinction. The Empire Center’s figures do not include employer-paid health insurance or pension contributions. The actual cost of employing these individuals is therefore greater than the compensation figures alone suggest.
As someone who has spent much of my professional career managing human resources, employee benefits, compensation programs, and organizational budgets, I understand that competitive compensation is essential to attracting and retaining qualified people. I also understand that compensation must be evaluated against an organization’s ability to pay. In the private sector, that reality is unavoidable. When expenses exceed revenues, employers must make adjustments. Positions may be eliminated. Benefits may be redesigned. Compensation increases may be deferred. In extreme circumstances, businesses close.
Government operates under a different economic model. When labor costs increase, municipalities can seek additional revenue through property taxes, fees, or other public funding sources. Although tax caps and budget constraints impose limits, the financial burden can still be shifted onto residents. For homeowners already struggling with property taxes, that distinction is anything but academic.
The Empire Center reports that local government payrolls in the Mid-Hudson region cost approximately $1,214 per resident, the highest regional figure in New York State. In Westchester County, combined county and municipal payroll costs reached $1,512 per resident. These numbers should command the attention of every town board, county legislator, municipal executive, and taxpayer association throughout the region. And remember, these are payroll figures, not the complete cost of government. They do not account for the full range of municipal operating expenses, infrastructure obligations, debt service, or employee benefit costs.
Yet year after year, taxpayers are told that government budgets are lean, resources are stretched, and additional revenue is necessary to maintain essential services. Perhaps that is true in some circumstances. But before elected officials ask residents to pay more, shouldn’t they first demonstrate that existing compensation arrangements are reasonable, transparent, and financially sustainable? Shouldn’t taxpayers understand how much of these extraordinary earnings results from base salaries, overtime, contractual provisions, accumulated leave payments, or retirement-related payouts?
A $350,000 compensation figure may have a very different explanation depending on its components. That explanation matters. But so does the final cost.
Another issue deserving attention is the structure of public-sector labor negotiations. Unlike private employers, government officials negotiate compensation agreements using money that belongs to someone else: the taxpayer. Public-sector unions understandably advocate for their members. That is their responsibility. But elected officials have an equally important responsibility to represent the financial interests of the communities they serve.
Too often, the long-term consequences of compensation agreements receive less public attention than the immediate political consequences of challenging them. Salary schedules, overtime provisions, longevity payments, retirement incentives, and benefit commitments can create obligations extending years into the future. And those obligations do not disappear when the elected officials who approved them leave office.
This is precisely why transparency must extend beyond publishing salary databases. Taxpayers should be able to understand how compensation agreements are negotiated, how their costs are projected, and whether municipal leaders are evaluating their long-term affordability. Public employment should offer competitive compensation and financial security. It should not become a system in which compensation growth is effectively insulated from the economic pressures experienced by the rest of the community.
Consider the retired couple living on a fixed income in Dutchess County. Or the young family trying to purchase its first home in Ulster County. Or the small-business owner in Orange County deciding whether another employee is financially feasible. Or the longtime Westchester resident wondering whether remaining in the community where they raised their children is still affordable.
These are the people who ultimately carry the burden of government spending. They are not opposed to good schools, safe neighborhoods, effective police departments, or responsive local government. They simply want to know that their money is being managed responsibly. And when they see government compensation figures exceeding $200,000, $300,000, and even $400,000, they are entitled to ask difficult questions. Not because public employees are undeserving. But because public accountability demands it.
There is a danger in allowing this discussion to deteriorate into resentment between public- and private-sector workers. That would miss the point entirely. The real issue is not whether individual employees should accept compensation legitimately earned under their employment agreements. The issue is whether the people responsible for negotiating and approving those agreements are exercising appropriate financial judgment.
Are staffing levels reasonable? Are overtime practices properly managed? Are compensation increases supported by measurable operational needs? Are pension and benefit obligations being evaluated realistically? And perhaps most importantly, are elected officials willing to challenge arrangements that may be politically popular but financially unsustainable?
These are legitimate management questions. They are also legitimate taxpayer questions.
The Hudson Valley is becoming an increasingly difficult place for working families, retirees, and small businesses to afford. Housing costs continue to challenge prospective homeowners. Property taxes remain a substantial burden. Employers face relentless pressure to control expenses while maintaining competitive wages and benefits. Against that backdrop, the Empire Center’s findings should serve as a wake-up call.
We cannot continue to evaluate government compensation in isolation from the financial condition of the communities supporting it. We cannot expect private-sector workers to accept economic uncertainty while treating public-sector compensation commitments as untouchable. And we cannot continue to measure government effectiveness primarily by how much money it spends.
The measure should be the quality of services delivered, the efficiency with which resources are managed, and the value received by the taxpayer.
No one is suggesting that police officers, firefighters, municipal workers, or other public employees should be underpaid. But there must be a reasonable relationship between public compensation and the economic capacity of the public itself.
Public service is an honorable profession. Public compensation is a legitimate expense. But public accountability is not optional.
The Empire Center has provided the numbers. Now it’s time for our elected officials to provide the explanations.
Because in the end, the question isn’t simply what they make.
It’s whether the people paying their salaries can still afford to live here.
Valley Viewpoint
Source: Empire Center for Public Policy, “What They Make 2026: Mid-Hudson.” Reported figures reflect pensionable earnings and exclude employer-paid fringe benefits.
