Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislature approves delaying vote on Home Rule request for county income surcharge after heated debate
Summary
Ulster County Ways and Means members debated a Home Rule request to seek state approval for an income tax surcharge on high earners, with questions about thresholds, PTET treatment, fiscal modeling and public engagement. A motion to postpone advanced 4–3 to allow more analysis and outreach.
The Ulster County Ways and Means Committee debated a Home Rule request on July 14 asking the state to authorize a county income tax surcharge on high‑income residents, then voted 4–3 to postpone further action to allow more analysis and public engagement.
The proposal, introduced at the meeting, was amended to change income thresholds and the surcharge rate; a sponsor described the changes as narrowing the affected population and adding a pass‑through entity tax (PTET) exemption. The sponsor said, “The first change is to change the income thresholds to 250,000 for an individual, 500,000 for a joint filer, and changing the rate from 16.75 to 18.75,” and explained that the amendment aims to target roughly 1% of the adult population.
Lawmakers pressing for delay said the committee lacked sufficient time and independent analysis. Legislator Grossman told colleagues the county faces about $8,500,000 in new mandated costs next year and urged multi‑year fiscal modeling, a fuller accounting of revenues and alternatives to new taxes. “Number 1, we need to quantify the size of the budget gap, not just for one year, but be thoughtful over multiple years,” Grossman said.
Opponents also raised process concerns about timing and outreach. Minority Leader Roberts moved to postpone the matter, saying he and constituents needed more time to review the materials. Chair Collins said parliamentary procedure required votes on pending amendments before considering postponement; after procedural exchanges, the motion to postpone prevailed on a roll‑call vote of 4–3.
Supporters said the Home Rule request does not itself enact a tax but preserves the county’s option to seek state authorization and to gather state data and analysis. The sponsor argued the step “creates more time for the process, not less,” and said the legislature could pursue guardrails such as triggers and sunsets if the tax were ever implemented.
Next steps: With the motion to postpone approved, the county will not send a final Home Rule recommendation to the State immediately. Committee members asked for additional fiscal analysis, more public engagement and clarifications about likely revenue estimates and exemptions before the issue returns for further consideration.
