Loading...
1985-01-10 PH A Public Hearing was held by the Town Board of the Town of wappinger on January 10th, 1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, wappingers Falls, Dutchess Courity, New York, on a proposed Local Law Relating to the Alternative wterans Exemption From Real Property Taxation. - Supervisor Versace opened the Hearing at 7:35 P.M. Present: Frank Versace, Supervisor Renata Ballard, Councilman Joseph Incoronato, Councilman Gerard McCluskey, Councilman Irene Paino, Councilwoman Gladys Ruit, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk The Town Clerk offered for the record the Affidavits of posting and publication duly signed and notarized. (These Affidavits are attached hereto and made part' thereof of the Minutes of this Hearing). Mr. Versace explained that there were two options available to the Board on this law; the first one would be to 9pt out of this exemption for one year, secondly would be to opt out entirely; if the Board took no action, it would automatically take effect. The law presented provides that no exemption would be granted from real property taxes and the input received at this Hearing will be considered by the Board when they take action on this law. The Assessor was present to.answer any questions the residents might have. Mr. Versace opened the Hearing to the public for their comments. Frederick Tudesco, Peters Road, in favor of the law--New York State passed it and forwarded it to the Town to pass it. He is a veteran from World Ward II which cut 4~ years out, of his life, and feels this is a small favorJt1o give to the vets. It doesn't amount to much but it shouldn't affect- the Town tha~ much with the revenue it receives from apartments and bu~inesses. They can absorb any loss the Town will experience. Definitely in favor of the exemption. David Garvey, 80 Scott Drive, in favor of the exemption; a combat veteran from Vietnam. He read that Fishkill passed the ~ most of Westchester and Putnam County passed it; why not the Town of Wappinger which is a properous community with businesses thriving. If the State pass~s it, why shouldn't our Town do likewise. Edward Cross, Balfour Drive---he is all for this exemption. Charles Chickerelli, MacIntosh Lane, in favor of the exemption. The real point of discussion here is to convince the Board and the Assessor. It's alnost unconscionable not to grant the veterans this exemption. It would be a shame to have the Town of Wappinger stand alone as not being able to afford just a few hundred dollars credit to the vets who served in the Vietnam War. At this point Mr. Versace wished to clarify the fact that this law, if adopted would be a ten year exemption, then it's off the books. If the Town should opt out for one year as is the case with some municipalities, then if they decide to opt in, it would be for nine years. John Kosak, MacIntosh Lane, agreed with Mr. Chickerelli; he, also was a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and felt this was all they had left of the few benefits they received. He had questions buu preferred to wait until others made their comments. Ron Andriello, Nancyaleen Drive, asked the Assessor how much they were talking about relating to the exemption in dollar figures. Mr. Logan gave a hypothetical example and picked an assessment amount of $8,000.00 and according to the percentage the individual was entitled to, 15% for any veteran who served in any war, 25% for those who were in combat and a higher percentage in the case of disiability from serving in the war, thi~ would be deducted from the assessment and in some cases would only amount to $20.00 a year. Mr. Andriello was in favor of the exemption even though it was a small amount. The Town was growing, businesses were coming in and certainly they could afford such a minimal loss of revenue. Terry O'Hara, Spook Hill Road, referred totthree options open on action by the Town on this law and wondered why they chose to take the most negative one. [ ~ l -., L 3 Mr. Versace responded that they chose this language because they were not sure of the impact the exemption would have on the tax roll, however, they will make their decision by con- sidering the comments made at this public hearing. They have no firm figures on the number of vets who will apply for this exemption but the input received tonight will be the deciding factor. Mr. O'Hare asked if the Town granted this exemption could they opt out after a year. The response was no. He then asked how does a vet prove he was in combat. Mr. Logan answered that the Form DD214 discharge papers will state this fact. Jim Glorioso, Nancyaleen Drive, in favor of the law, would like to see the veterans have an opportunity to get a break on their taxes. Bob Anders, Hackensack Heights, wouldn't fee! any hardship if there was a burden on taxpayers to make up the $20.00 these vets would receive. He feels for the Vietnam Vet who came back with all kinds of problems. It isn't so much the monetary value, it's the gesture from the Town that they are willing to recognize these vets and give them a break~ Even if the Town doesn't consider it this year, they could assess the situation to see what the da~ will be and act on it next year. He added that it wasn't fair to the vets in apartments. Frank Ruh, MacFarlane Road, a vet of the Korean War felt like everyone else that he would like to get a break but not if it meant the Town would have to give up services like the plowing of the roads~ he would like to see all veterans get a break, perhaps for those in apartments the landlord could lower the rent. Mark Feinberg, Mill Street, 4~~ disabled---President is thinking of cutting benefits which apply to him, if the law is approved he will get some benefits back. He agreed that vets in apart- ments should get benefits but they can get some assistance with rent but a person who owns a home cannot. Lj He asked Mr. Logan how the law deals with disabled vets. Mr. Logan responded that the law provides 5~~ of the: percentage of your disability so if you were a vet in combat and have a 4~~ disability you would receive 15% + l~~ + 2~~, a total of 45% off the assessment. Carol Feinberg, Mill Street, wife of a disabled vet wanted to be II on record that she was in favor of the exemption. Henry Semp, All Angels Hill Road, veteran of WWII, ee0he wouldn't ~ get too much of a benefit on this law but they should bring the vietnam Veterans under the umbrella so they can enjoy the benefits that has been bestowed on other veterans. He did not think veterans especially the older ones should be paying full school taxes since veterans in apartments or trailers do not have to pay this tax. Mr. Incoronato pointed out that these people do pay a share of their taxes. Steve Miller, MacIntosh Lane, in favor of exemption, veterans deserve some sign of recognition for what they did. Frank Gallagher, 34 Brothers Road, in favor of the exemption, most of his questions were answered, had one question. If they are talking about a $20.00 deduction he wouldn't be present, just what does the _law mean, how does ibllwork. Mr. Logan explained the percentages again and informed Mr. Gallagher he would get about a $24.00 deduction in his taxes. Lucy Gallagher, wife of Frank, stated that she was here as an observer. - Richard Sugrue, Split Tree Drive, the lack of publicity concerned him, he failed to'see anything in the paper regarding this hearing. Since the Board was so concerned about the number of veterans involved with this exemption, what are they going to do to com- municate with them and make them aware of the law. Mr. Versace responded that they had put a legal ad in the paper, the new media was present at the meeting when they set this public hearing, and he notified the vietnam Veteran OrganiEation that meets by the Beacon Bridge; he had a meeting with them in December and indicated at that time that he would inform them when the Town would hold a public hearing on this law. The representatives of vi I ~ ( '-' l '-' l that organization informed Mr. Versace at that time to notify them and they in turn would communicate with the veterans so they were aware of what was going on. Mr. Logan added that the Town has cooperated in every way in order to publicize the hearing;~his office recorded the name and address of every vet who called his office and copies of the notice of public hearing was sent to them; he also called Mr. Maria, head of the Vietnam Veterans. There has been enough publicity on this so if there is a lack of interest it's the responsibility of the vets, not the Town Officials. Mr. Versace noted that there was not one member of the pxess present, although they were notified of the Hearing. Mr. McCluskey added that the vets might have the opinion that the state has been great passing such a law, however the other side of the coin is that the state passed it on to the localities and informed them if they want to give the vets a break, go ahead and give it to them. It wasn't hurting the state's financial status, the burden was given to the Towns, so if there is a concern or a complaint, tell it to the state. Steven Hemditsky, Cider Mill Loop, in favor of an exemption for the veterans. George Budd, 15 Gold Road, resident for over 15 years, Town is growing, seen development on Myers Corners Road, feels that the veterans should gain something, the little amount that this law will grant him will be offset from the growth of this Town, would like to see the exemption passed. Jim Gescheidle, Pippin Lane, Vietnam Veteran, all for this law, they deserve it for giving up their time especially after the insult from the President by welcoming back with welcome arms those who went to Canada to avoid this war. Tom Reinfus, Baldwin Drive, for the exemption. He brought up the fact that the Town of Fishkill opted for the minimum; the Town of wappinger is talking about the maximum which is averaged at $20.00, so the minimum must be about $10.00. If they go for that for one year can they boost it up for the following nine years. o This was a question they would have to check out. He suggested that they pass the minimum amount and find out what the impact would be,.and if they felt it was a negligible amount they could possibly change it to the maximum next year. How would they find out how many veterans are on the roll if they don't take some action. Mrs. Paino felt this was a very viable suggestion to opt in at least for the minimum and when they come forward the Town would find out exactly how many veterans are in the Town. Mr. Reinfus had one more point to bring up~ he wasn't present tonight to gain the $10.00 or $20.00 deduction, he was here because he thought the state was doing something good for the vets. Dennis Lasowski, Baldwin Drive asked the Board if they chose to opt out of this law do they have a plan to :find out how many veterans there are in the Town. At this time all they can do is guess, but for example say there are 6,000 veterans in the Town who are homeowners, allow $20.00 a year for the exemption, that's $120,000, what percentage would that be off the tax roll. Mr. McCluskey pointed out that the exemption would be more in some cases, so the figure of $120,000 is not a true one~ even if they passed the law he doubted if all the veterans in the Town would come fo~ard, so they still wouldnJt have an accurate figure. Dave Garvey, Scott Drive---one thing the Board mentioned was that there was no press present but he was sure they'd read about it in the Wappinger paper or the Poughkeepsie Journal, somehow they get their story. When the Town of Poughkeepsie had their hearing there was no press present and he felt that was why they turned it down. There were at least 27 people present tonight and not one person opposed the law, so how could the Town possible turn it down. If the Town Board has the people's interest at heart, they couldn't possibly oppose it. He claimed that the meeting was not publicized and the veterans found out by other methods, maybe that is the reason there are so few people present. Mr. Versace clarified the fact that the Board cannot take action I ~ - ~ I 1 l ~ L ~ ~ on this law tonight, and none of the Board Members have indicated that they are against it. They will consider all comments made at this Hearing when it is placed before them for a vote. John Chickerelli, MacINtosh Lane, spoke on this law regarding homeowner vs. apartment dweller and felt that no matter what law is adopted it will not provide a total fairness to everyone. He asked the Board to keep this in mind When they were considering this law and not to let the fact that all veterans are not receiving this benefit prevent them from approving this exemption for the veterans who are homeowners. John Kosak, surprised that the deduction will only amount to about $25.00, he thought it was about $200.00, we're talking about nothing. If the Board chooses to vote this exemption down and wants to determine the number of vets in the Town for future consideration of the law, he suggested that they put enclosures in the tax bills and request the owners to check the box if they are veterans when they return their payment. Ron Andriello, Nancyaleen Drive, pointed out that the legal notice was in the Wappinger News but it went back a couple of weeks~ something should have been put in after that to refresh the memory of the interested residents. Gary O'Hara, did not indicate the first time he spoke whether he was in favor of the law or not, he wanted to hear the comments first. He has formed an opinion, talking about a minimum of $10.00 and a maximum of about $24.00 which will amount ~m about $30,000.00 cost to the taxpayers~ he would like the Board to go for the minimum just as a token of Wappinger's appreciation of the veterans. Bob Anders, Hackensack Heights, thanked the Town Assessor for sending a copy of the notice of public hearing~ he had a question-- are they going to try to find out the number of veterans in the Town, how many were in combat and how many are disabled. If you decide to wait a year to see how it will affect the tax roll the veterans won't appear~ then after the year you decide to go for it, you'll see a whole slew of vets applying for it. If the Board decides to put an ad in the paper asking the vets to come forward, if they're smart, they won't declare themselves, so the Board will not get an accurate number until they pass the law. 2 Frank Gallagher, why hasn't any of the town ships tried to buck the state since they are putting the burden on the towns. Mr. Versace replied that the Supervisor's Association in Dutchess County forwarded the following letter to the state: November 2, 1984 - As you are aware the twenty Towns of Dutchess County has for a time had a Supervisors' Association, meeting monthly wherein matters of local/county/state concern are discussed. w The uppermost topic these past few weeks has been over Section 458-A of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York. This law provides, as you know, what is called an Alternative Veterans Exemption and is capsulized quite well in the fact sheet provided by the New York State Senate (copy enclosed). In trying to appraise the economic impact of this law we asked for and received from the Dutchess County Real Property Tax Office the figures found on enclosure marked "A" and which we feel is self-explanatory. Also, in view of the paragraph on the bottom of exhibit "A" we obtained from the last census report, the total number of veterans each Town has as against the number that has actually claimed exemption. These figures are on enclosure marked "B", and demonstrates quite clearly that while the potential under 458-A increased tax exemption from veterans currently claiming same, exhibit "A", would significantly raise same, the potential tax base loss for veterans who have never claimed, would be astronomical. I Further, when one class of property owners receive an exemption, the remainder of the municipality's taxpayers must make up the slack as pointed out by the Association of Towns in their memorandum to the Governor recommending he veto the bill, exhibit "C". We concur with the Association of Towns sentiment on this law and regard it as one of the most irresponsible, poorly thought out pieces of legislation ever to come out of Albany. Wew.ill assume that since it was for veterans and was one of hundreds for review, it slipped through without much scrutiny. In its apparent attempt to eliminate certain short-comings in its treatment of veterans it still, however, discriminates against the veteran who is not a property owner. Is he not entitled to the same equable treatment for his veteran services? And, finally in passing Section 458-A you carne out of Albany looking like the great benefactor for veterans but the reality of the situation:",forces Town Supervisors in their attempt to preserve the tax base to opt out of Section 458-A without benefitting anyone. WI I You have passed a bad law gentlemen and we strongly suggest in your next legislative session you take Section 458-A back to the drawing board. May we suggest you apply a veteran exemption against New York State Income Tax. This would take the burden off the property owner and would also be truly equable to all veterans, property owners or not. Sincerely, s/ Wesley E. Virtue, Pres. Supervisors' Assn. L -.., ( -.., L ,,- c; Prior to the submission of this letter, Mr. Versace pointed out that when the law was first proposed there was reimbursement promised by the state to'the communities who granted this exemption; at the very end when the amendment carne through the-state opted out and voted not to send revenue to the communities and put the burden on them regarding the option they wished to take. The state has not given the veterans any break. The original bill included only the Vietnam Vets and the Korean Vets who were not included in the present exemption and when the amendment included all vets, the state withdrew their aid. Mr. Gallagher asked how the tax roll would be affected by these exemptions when the Town goes to full assessment. It was pointed out that this would be a washout since along with the assessment going to lO~~, the tax rate will go down proportion- ately, in Wappinger's case, approximately 2~~. Richard Sugrue thanked the Board for taking the time for this meeting in order to listen to the public and make them aware of the law and thanked the other vets who were present. He then asked Mr. Logan if there were any current laws relating to tax exemptions available to Vietnam Veterans. Mr. Logan answered there were some provisions in the existing law applieab~ to these vets but he felt that this law was even more unfair than the proposed one. George Budd, hoped the Board are good managers in respect that they have short range planning, medium range planning and long range planning. You know what your expenses are going to be in all three phases of management. He cannot see, even at the maximum exemption that the numbers mentioned by Mrs. Ballard are accurate (she used a figures of one million to three million dollars cost to the Town). Mrs. Ballard was referring to the assessed valuation, not the actual dollar figure.when she pointed this out. Mr~ McClu?~ey asked the Assessor if the vet is deceased is the wife entitled to the exemption---yes if the property is in her name and she remains unmarried. Mr. McCluskey, what about if they are divorced, can she keep the exemption if she remains in the house; the answer was that the vet is entitled to only one exemption so I J }O that would be up to the parties involved on who takes the exemption. Henry Semp, how can the Bo ard vote on this law a t this time when they have no idea what impact it will have on the tax roll, they certainly haven't the time to get this information before the dead line. The Board is home free, they can opt out because they don't have this information. In relation to Section 458-A, this I bill has been bouncing around for several years; the Association of Towns had a meeting, Mr. Saland was present discussing this bill and ~ he stated to Mr. Semp that there was absolutely no objection to this bill by the Supervisors, so what is wrong, is Mr. Saland making false statements. Mr. Versace answered that ,this statement was wrong, the officials of this Town had no idea of this law until Mr. Logan brought it to their attention in September of 1984. Mr. Saland was present in November and briefly reported that the state would not give any aid on this program and the Governor vetoed aid for the program, that's all the information they received. other towns when this was passed established advisory committees, "I"'" ."^. Henry Semp--this became a law in July of 1984, why is it that in advertised for information, this Town did absolutely nothing to put out information for the vets. Mr. Versace disagreed, they had a work shop session with Mr. Logan shortly after they were aware of it; advisory groups did not have enough facts to produce anything substantial on the law. It's tough to get the necessary facts, it would be a mass program. The state level could not obtain the required information, where do you find it. Most municipalities have opted out for more year to seek the figures they need. Ads in our official paper would do no good since most of the Town don't receive it or don't read it. t,j George Budd, the Board claims they do not know what the impact is going to be but by their own figures, they do know. They have I 5,000 parcels, single family dwelling, that's the only dwelling that can receive a tax break; if you go for the maximum of an average of $25.00, it would mean $125,000, secondly they can poll the people in the Town. He received the notice the Town sent when they planned to install water meters. If it comes from the Town and it means either a saving or another expense, people read it. - l \.; '- L ..., L ~ There are ways to determine the number of vets in the Town, they are telling the Board tonight what avenues to ~ake, so the Board should listen. They want the tax break no matter if it's peanuts, they want it. If the Board wants to' opt out for a year, .that I s okay, they III take nine years, just don I t let them down like everyone else is; he was let down once back in 1959, don't let him down again. Mark Feinberg, doesn't matter what they go for, the lowest or the highest, it's a smack in the face because those who served in the first and second World War have hidden tax exemptions, he's disabled from the Vietnam War and has a hidden tax exemption, but for those who have served in the Korean and Vietnam War~ what's $25.00. Frank Gallagher---agreed $25.00 was nothing, he just lost his first year's exemption paying his babysitter. Ron Andriello felt the Board should take the one year option to think about it, don't forget about it, held rather they took the time to gather the information they needed rather than turn it down now. There were no other comments made either for or against the tax exemption for the vets. MR. VERSACE moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mrs. Paino and unanimously carried. The Hearing closed at 9:22 P.M. ~ \\~~ Ela~. Snowden Town Clerk By:~~LLi- /' Gladys Ruit Deputy Town Clerk ~ r ~ l TOWN BOARD: TOWN OF WAPPINGER DUTCHES S COUNTY: NEW YORK IN THE 'MATTER AFFIDAVIT OF OF POSTING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO THE ALTERNATIVE VETERANS EXEMPTION FROM REAL PROPERTY TAXATION STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF DUTCHES S ) ELAINE H. SNOWDEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That she is the duly elected, qualified and acting Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess and State of New York. That on January 2nd, 1985, your deponent posted a copy of the attached'notice of Public Hearing on a proposed Local Law in Relation to the Alternative Veterans Exemption from Real Property Taxation, on the signboard maintained by your deponent in her office in the Town Hall of the Town of Wappinger, Mill Street, in the Village of Wappingers Falls, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York. ~-""-" -)) \\ ,', (/()a-UU ~ \. \.<-fl)AIRQL\, .' Elaine H. Snowden Town Clerk Town of Wappinger Sworn to before me this 'D IIr day of -..J.~ 1985. II ~' / j '". 7"'r- "---'~ j, \ ~, --, Nota~blic '_ -' VH~~"'" r:-:..... ..~'l, JR. .,t;r)' r~1 :'; l:' " .,:~ :'::3:, li,,;';'::r~ I~ U :,r ~. 'JO'f ,r. c.. ,- '.mmliiiclI tX...jI~1 ;".j~h 3D, ,_ 1'1',0 ~~ II L ~J e ~cn<ill 13. D. NEvVS DISPLAY ADVERTlS/;VG .:- CLASSIFIED ADV ER TfSlNG 914 297-3723 84 EAST MAIN STREET-WAI'PlNGERS FALLS, NY 12590 AFFIDA VIT OF PUBLICATION State of New York, County of Dutchess, Town of Wappinger. .. .. . . . . ~.i.~~~~. ~C?~~~~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, being duly sworn, says that he is, and, at the several times hereinafter was, the . .:QqQ~."'Pt!T. . . . . . . . . . . of the W. & S.D. NEWS, a newspaper printed and published every Wednesday in the year in the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, and that the annexed NOTICE was duly published in the said newspaper for. . .one. . . . weeks successively. onc.a . . in each week, commencing on the. 2ud. . day of. J.an. . 19.85 . and on the following dates thereafter, namely on l NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that " there has been duly presented and In. Irod uced before Ihe Town Boanl of Ihe Town of Wappinger, Dutchess Counly, New York on December 17, 1984, a pro- r~~C~~~~-;~s ~~I~"f~bN TO THE ALTERNATIVE VETERANS EXEMp. TION FROM REAL PROPERTY TAXA. TION " - The Local Law No. . of the year 1985 provides as follows: ' BE IT ENACTED, by Ihe Town Board 01 Ihe Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, as follows: Seetlon 1: The purpose ollhls law I' to provide lhal no exemption from real property laxes shall be granlad pur- suant 10 Section 4Ii&a of the Real Pr0- perty Tax Law of the State 01 New York. Seetlon 2: Pureuanl to Ihe provisions 01 subdivision 4 of Section 45&8 of Ihe Raal Property Tu Law of Iha Slala of Naw York, no axemptlon from real pro- perty taxes shall be granted pureuanl 10 Seetlon 45&a of Ihe Real Property Tax Law for purposes of real property laxes levied lor Iha Town of Wappinger. Seellon 3: This local law shall lake ef. fect Immedlalely upon Its filing wllh Iha Secrelary of Slate. NOTICE IS FURT.HER GIVEN thlll the Town Board will conduct a Public Haar. Ing on Ihe aloreaald proposed Local Law al the Town Hall, Mill Slreet. Village of Wapplngers Falls. Dutchess Counly. New York on January 1(), 1985 a11:3O P.M. on auch date. al which lime all partleslnt_ted will be heard. ., NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN Ihat copies of lhe aforesaid proposed Local Law will be available for examination and Inapectlon allhe office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Wappinger In the Town Hall between tha data of this nollca and the dala of tha publiC haar. lng. " , - Elalna H. Snowden ... Town Clark Town of Wapplngar Dated: December 18, 11184 .......................................... . and ending on the. . . . .2J:\q . . . . day of. . . J.anuar;y. 19.85. both days inclusive/!) . ;' if)) L-- e Y J C)(-i 4' V::/ \ { tNl .......................... . - Subscribed and sworn to before me this....2.nd.... day of. ...Jan.... 19.8.5....... .----. 0::::::.----'- ~ .......................... . Notary Public - L My commission expires. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AL8[RT M. OSTEN NOT~RY PU~I:C. ~rA,t (oF m:w YORK QUf'lL:f1EU t~; :(::::;~1~"3 l.~urii,( I 1 ,- ,- '0.".') r .',d'::'-~ /-::. a~ COM.\ISSiU~ . (".."S M'r.;H In, 19.Q.