Julie, a staff member who delivered the board's monthly finance update, told the Kingston Preservation Advisory Board that the city's April real-estate activity generated $11,795,009.06 in total recorded sales and 59 recorded transfers. "Of that, there were 59 total transfers across the city," she said, and added that 48 of those transfers were listed as exempt and 11 paid the real-estate transfer tax.

Julie said 18.64% of April transactions were subject to the tax, the average taxable transaction was $1,416.51, and the city collected about $15,005.81 in transfer-tax revenue for the month. She also reported $53,009.71 in total transfer-tax revenue to date and noted the county had posted 39 cents of interest for April; she said the city's interest had not been calculated yet.

The board debated whether staff should research reasons for the exemptions and how the tax is measured. "I guess we would just need to decide if this board wants me to look into why people are exempt and get that information," Julie said. Some members said detailed exemption research would be useful for the board's oversight; others said the exemptions may be outside the board's authority and therefore not necessary to pursue now.

Julie also reported a county-level policy conversation that could change which median-sales benchmark is used to determine transfer-tax liability. She said the mayor had discussed an effort among local mayors and supervisors to seek a state law change so the tax threshold would be calculated using municipal median sales prices rather than the Ulster County median. "Right now it's done on the county level," Julie said, adding that the Ulster County median sales price at the time was $425,000 and some municipalities have substantially different medians.

Board members discussed potential effects of such a change: if the benchmark were set at a lower municipal median, more transactions in some towns could become taxable, increasing revenue for the local Real Estate Urban Community Preservation Fund but also expanding the tax's reach. One member warned the change could be regressive if it brought lower-priced local sales into the taxable range.

The board amended and approved a prior motion to include Kevin's comments about the transfer tax in the minutes and records; Casey seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The board asked staff to return with follow-up information about exemption categories and any state-level proposals or advocacy steps for discussion at a future meeting.

The board did not adopt new policy at the meeting; members instead asked staff to provide clarifying data and to revisit the county-versus-municipal benchmark issue once more information is available.