Equalization rates drove 2025–26 tax-rate shifts across Monroe-Woodbury towns, district presentation shows

Patrick Cahill, a staff member presenting to the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District Board of Education on Sept. 17, explained how New York State equalization rates affected the district's 2025–26 school tax rates despite a modest levy increase.

Cahill told the board the district's tax levy increased 1.5% to $133,300,000 but that changes in state equalization rates redistributed that levy among the five towns that comprise the district.

Cahill said the district uses the state's equalization rates to convert assessed values up to full market value so the levy can be apportioned fairly. "It's a system based on value. It's called an ad valorem tax system," he said. He added that because many towns assess at a fraction of market value, the equalization process is necessary to create equitable mill rates across municipal segments.

Why it matters: the levy is the portion the district controls; equalization rates reflect how each town's assessed values compare to market value and can change annually. Cahill said falling equalization rates mean market values rose faster than assessed values, which can increase a town's mill rate even when the levy change is small.

Cahill walked the board through a hypothetical two-town example showing that, with equalization applied, the share of levy a town bears can change (for example, 60%/40% instead of 50%/50%), and that recalculation changes mill rates for taxpayers in each town. He reiterated: "The takeaway is that the equalization rate changes seem to have a bigger impact even than the increase in the tax levy."

Monroe-Woodbury figures cited by Cahill: the district's full market-value base was about $8.1 billion after applying state equalization rates. The district levy was $133.3 million, up 1.5% from the prior year (the presenter noted that 1.5% was below the district's tax-cap allowance). Cahill reported the state equalization rates used for 2025–26 were approximately: Blooming Grove 8.7%, Chester 36.5%, Monroe 10.8%, Tuxedo 11.3% and Woodbury about 27.5%.

Cahill said those shifts in equalization produced different mill-rate outcomes across the five towns: Blooming Grove's tax rate rose about 4.8%, Chester about 3.3%, Monroe a little over 2%, while Tuxedo saw about a 2.5% decrease and Woodbury about a 1.65% decrease. Cahill also noted a separate factor he called "rollbacks" or omitted taxes (for example, when a prior owner's exemption falls off after a sale) that can distort a segment's rate; he cited a large rollback in Tuxedo that helped reduce that town's rate.

Board members thanked Cahill for the explanation. A board member who identified as Dr. Morales and another who identified as Miss Novak both praised the presentation as clear and easy to understand.

The presentation did not propose any board action; it was informational. Cahill took questions from board members about assessed value (AV) stability, market-value dynamics and how full reassessments would remove the need for equalization if towns repeatedly updated assessments to 100% of market value.