Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee sets July public hearing for proposed property‑tax exemption for surviving spouses of police killed in the line of duty
Summary
The committee set a July 14, 2026 public hearing on a local law to exempt the county portion of property taxes for surviving spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty; lawmakers requested precedent and financial‑impact information and noted implementation questions including transferability and sunset provisions.
Ulster County’s Law Enforcement and Public Safety Committee voted June 2 to set a public hearing July 14 on proposed local law No. 11 of 2026, which would provide a county‑portion real property tax exemption for surviving spouses of police officers killed in the line of duty.
The hearing was set under Resolution 311. Committee members asked staff and the bill sponsor for information about precedents, scope and fiscal impacts before the public hearing. Legislators asked whether similar carve‑outs exist for other emergency services or military service members, whether the exemption would transfer to surviving children or remain with an unremarried spouse, and whether a sunset should be included.
“I would also want to just receive information ... on whether there is precedent on this for either active‑duty soldiers or National Guard folks,” Legislator Levine said, requesting statewide examples before the committee moves the measure beyond the hearing stage.
Committee members also sought estimates of how many households might benefit and the potential fiscal effect on county revenues. The chair reminded members that the resolution before the committee sets a public hearing only; it does not enact the exemption. The committee noted that the draft local law would apply to taxable status dates occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2027.
Several members signaled support for moving the hearing forward while requesting the additional information: one urged not to delay a measure designed to help families while another emphasized the need to understand financial implications before final approval. The motion to set the hearing carried.
