A group of residents told the Clinton County Legislature on July 16 that higher property assessments and local spending are driving up their property tax bills even though county budget documents show a reduced tax levy.

The comments came during the meeting’s public-comment period, when a resident who did not give a full name described a personal property-tax increase and urged legislators to look for spending cuts. “I believe that you can see that my tax is increasing $1,100 in in 36 months,” the resident said.

The residents’ statements centered on the difference between tax rates and assessed values: the commenter quoted a median assessed value in the city of Plattsburgh of $291,000 and a combined tax bill on that assessment “roughly $8,491 a year.” The commenter said the county portion of that combined tax bill was not clear to them and reported paying $6,575.89 in 2022 and $7,646.76 in 2025.

Why it matters: County officials repeatedly emphasize that a lower tax levy does not always translate into lower bills for a property owner when assessments change. Residents at the meeting said that explanation is not satisfying when their actual bills rise.

What was said and what it means: The resident asked the legislature to “seek to help the taxpayers and eliminate things we don't need.” A presiding legislator interjected an on-the-spot clarification, saying a county share of the combined rate is about $3.97 per $1,000 of assessed value, but the full breakdown of school, city and county portions was not provided in the record and county staff directed residents to consult their tax bills for exact line-item amounts. The transcript does not show a formal follow-up assignment to staff from the floor.

Details and context: At the meeting, committee and staff reports referenced the county’s 2025 tentative budget and a multi-year trend of decreasing the county tax levy. The resident challenged the practical effect of that trend on individual taxpayers when assessments rise. The meeting record does not contain a formal vote or motion related to the public comment; it records the comment and brief answers from legislators.

What wasn’t in the record: The meeting transcript did not include a department-produced line-by-line example showing how assessment equalization or exemptions would affect the specific taxpayer’s bill, nor did it show a formal directive from the legislature to staff to prepare such examples.

Next steps reported at meeting: No formal referral or motion to staff was recorded in the provided transcript. Residents were advised to take questions to city officials as well, and one resident said they planned to speak to the City of Plattsburgh about the breakdown.

Ending: The public-comment segment closed without additional committee action; the legislature proceeded to committee reports and scheduled business.