East Islip board raises income threshold for senior, disability school property tax exemptions to $40,000

The East Islip Union Free School District Board of Education voted to raise the income threshold for school real‑property tax exemptions for seniors and for limited‑income persons with disabilities from $29,000 to $40,000, with a sliding scale that phases benefits up to roughly $48,400. Board members approved the change at the public meeting following a presentation by a district presenter on real property tax law changes.

The change expands eligibility for the district’s 50% assessed‑value reduction for qualifying households aged 65 and over and for qualifying disabled persons, and the board’s presenter said it would apply to the 2025–26 tax year. District staff told the board the estimated net shift in cost to other taxpayers from raising the threshold to $40,000 would be “less than $83 on an annual basis.”

Why it matters: the exemption reduces the assessed value used to calculate only the school district portion of the property tax bill; the district receives the full levy authorized by the Board of Education, so enlarging exemptions shifts the distribution of that levy to taxpayers who do not qualify. The district presented parcel‑level counts and assessed‑value totals used in its estimate.

Details from the presentation and public comment

• Current and projected recipients: the presenter reported there are currently 220 parcels within the district receiving the senior exemption, with a combined assessed value of $3,300,000. For the limited‑income disability exemption the presenter said nine parcels are currently receiving reductions totaling $148,525.

• Proposed thresholds and scale: under the approved change, households with income up to $40,000 would qualify for the 50% assessed‑value reduction; a sliding scale would phase down the reduction as income increases and would cap reductions at incomes roughly between $48,000 and $48,400 (the presenter described the upper part of the scale and the diminished percentage at higher incomes).

• Income definition: the presenter said the district chose an option consistent with neighboring taxing jurisdictions that includes federally taxable IRA distributions and annuity payments in income for the exemption calculation; that change, the presenter said, had previously made some seniors ineligible or less eligible.

• Fiscal impact: the presenter told the board that, based on town data collected since the 2024 statutory change, increasing the threshold to $40,000 would shift less than $83 per year, on average, to other school taxpayers. The presenter also said the town of Islip had raised its threshold for its municipal exemption to $50,000, which informed the district’s analysis.

Public commenters questioned the change and raised concerns about individual tax increases. One resident who identified herself during public comment said her property tax bill rose by $3,000 and asked who benefits; one public commenter said, “My taxes went up $3,000,” and the board president and presenter responded to explain the district portion versus town or county tax components. Another audience member asked whether the change affected the STAR or enhanced STAR programs; the presenter said the district exemption is separate from the STAR program and from other municipal exemptions and that applications are handled through the Town of Islip assessor’s office.

Board action and next steps

During the business portion of the meeting the board moved and approved the consent agenda and then voted to adopt the resolution increasing the income threshold for the senior and limited‑income disability school tax exemptions to $40,000 with the sliding scale described. The presenter confirmed the change would apply to the 2025–26 tax year.

The district will rely on the Town of Islip’s application and income‑verification process for household eligibility. The board announced the next regular business meeting and a budget presentation scheduled for March 13, 2025, where related budget impacts may be discussed further.

Notes on attributions and scope

Quotes and attributions in this report come from the district presenter on real property tax law changes; the board president; and members of the public who spoke during the meeting. The article reflects figures and phrasing provided by the presenter and public commenters during the meeting; where the transcript did not provide a named board member for the motion or roll‑call tallies, this article reports the board’s recorded outcome and notes that a voice vote was taken and that a roll‑call tally was not read aloud in the transcript.