Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jamestown resident flags date error in local law, warns it could presage tax increase
Summary
At a Jamestown public hearing, resident Doug Chan pointed out a date inconsistency in a local law and warned provisions in a cited statute and resolution could lead to future property-tax increases, citing the 2% tax cap and recent years of higher increases.
Doug Chan, a Jamestown resident, told a public hearing that a local law’s date reference — “01/01/2025” — appears incorrect and raised broader concerns that the law’s provisions and related statutes could pave the way for a future property-tax increase.
“I wanted to be here because the apathy in public hearings in Jamestown is a sad commentary,” Chan said, identifying his address as 225 Boyne Street. He questioned the date in the local law and asked council members to note the apparent error: “In your local law, you referenced 01/01/2025. Is that correct?” Chan later said the date “should’ve been 2026.”
Chan said the discrepancy is more than clerical, and he cited provisions he said are in a statute and in a resolution that could be used if local officials pursue a tax override. “In the event that a local government successfully overrides the tax … it’s in the statute,” he said. He also cited “section 3” of the resolution, and warned that without new property growth the city may need to exceed limits on property tax revenue: “because there is no growth or further development in the city … you have to exceed the tax limit.”
Chan referenced the long-standing 2% tax cap when describing how local governments try to manage rising costs. “That 2% law has been in effect for so long, and I think it’s redundant,” a council member responded during the exchange, adding that the state Legislature would have to change that cap. The council member said the city would prefer not to exceed the cap but would take action if necessary: “It would be our … best interest not to do that, but if we have to do it, we will.”
Chan pointed to recent experience in nearby communities, saying “we know what happened in Dunkirk and Fredonia,” and called the issue “a critical event” ahead of the city’s budget process. He told the hearing he planned to return for the general budget session to speak further.
There was no formal vote or motion recorded in the portion of the meeting covered by the transcript. The comments were presented as public comment and a short exchange with an unidentified council member; no official change to the cited local law, resolution, or tax policy was announced during the session.
