Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town of Clinton rejects change to senior tax-exemption formula after public hearing
Summary
After a public hearing and comments from residents and the assessor, the Town Board voted against a proposed local law that would have excluded nontaxable Social Security from seniors' income calculations for a property tax exemption.
The Town of Clinton Town Board on Oct. 14 heard public comment on a proposed local law to amend town code chapter 2-10 to exclude nontaxable Social Security benefits from the senior-citizen income calculation, then voted to reject the measure.
The proposal would have changed the town's calculation to exclude "any Social Security benefits that are not included in an applicant's adjusted gross income as set forth in section 467(3)(a) of the Real Property Tax Law," according to board discussion. Councilwoman Catherine Mostello introduced the item and put it before the board for action.
The proposal drew several residents to the microphone. Lynn (last name not specified), a town resident, told the board she had researched state figures and said the number of people on the exemption in Clinton had risen from 25 to 85 over a five-year period and that the town faces an estimated $28,000 cost if the change is adopted. "If you divide that $28,000 by that, it's a matter of $7.04 more," she said, urging the board to weigh the community impact.
Susan Rivard of 116 Long Pond Road said she supported measures that "could help lower income elderly or disabled or veterans in town," and cautioned that changes in Social Security rules could unintentionally bump some lower-income seniors off other exemptions. The town assessor (identified in the meeting transcript as Sarah) noted that Clinton already had adopted the highest limits allowed by the state and reminded the board that the STAR exemption is administered by the state and not the assessor's office.
Board members discussed the change during their meeting. Council comments reiterated that the town had adopted the maximum reduction permitted by state law and that New York state, not the town, altered the federal-to-local calculation. After motion and second, the board voted; the motion failed (vote counts were not recorded in the meeting transcript). The board did not adopt the proposed local law.
The failed vote leaves current local calculation in place. Residents and board members noted the issue could be revisited in future sessions but provided no further directive at the Oct. 14 meeting.
Votes and official motions recorded in the meeting minutes indicate the motion to adopt the local law failed; the transcript does not record a roll-call vote or individual tallies for that motion.
