Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Exemptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sachem board reviews proposal to raise income thresholds for senior and disability property-tax exemptions
Summary
Board members and town assessors discussed a staff proposal to raise income thresholds for partial property-tax exemptions for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, heard that neighboring municipalities largely moved to higher limits, and directed staff to prepare a resolution for the next meeting by the board’s March deadline.
The Sachem Central School District Board of Education held a public hearing and discussed a staff proposal to increase income thresholds for partial real-property tax exemptions for qualified seniors and persons with disabilities under state law, and directed staff to prepare a formal resolution for the next board meeting.
Michelle, a district staff member who presented the proposal, told the board the district has not updated its exemption income thresholds since 2009. She summarized the current and proposed figures: under the 2009 schedule, households with incomes between $0 and $29,000 were eligible for a 50% exemption (phasing out up to $37,400); new state guidance effective in 2023 made a $50,000 maximum with a sliding scale to $58,400 available to local districts. The packet before the board included an option that would set the minimum income for the 50% exemption at $42,500 with a phase-out to $50,900.
Why it matters: raising the threshold would expand eligibility but also shifts part of the tax burden to the remainder of the tax base unless offset by other changes. A board member noted the proposed change represents roughly a 25% increase in the threshold compared with Sachem’s prior setting and said the board needs to evaluate the community-wide impact before acting.
Felix Weinklawn, assessor for the Town of Brookhaven, explained the state provides three options for how districts calculate “income” for exemption eligibility, starting from federal adjusted gross income and differing in whether and how IRAs, annuities and full Social Security are included. He cautioned that year-to-year income volatility (for example, one-time settlements or required minimum distributions) can make one-year eligibility projections unreliable. Using available town data and one option scenario, Felix said the change would decrease the district’s taxable assessed value by roughly $304,000 (an approximate estimate), which in turn affects how the tax rate is computed for all taxpayers.
Board members also raised a related concern about state aid formulas. Several asked whether changing the income definition or exemption population could affect the district’s combined wealth ratio and therefore its state aid. Staff and the assessor said the combined wealth ratio incorporates income and market-value measures reported to the state and that the district would provide the full formula and the relevant calculations in the board’s Friday packet for clearer analysis.
What the board decided: the board closed the public hearing after discussion and asked staff to prepare a resolution for the next meeting using the thresholds highlighted in the packet. Michelle told the board a resolution must be adopted by the March deadline if the board wishes to change the exemption thresholds this year.
Next steps: staff will prepare a draft resolution for the board’s next meeting and provide supporting calculations, the state-option descriptions for income definition, and the combined-wealth-ratio formula so the board can review projected impacts on tax rates and state aid prior to any formal vote.
