I sent Rosanna Mazzaccari Rosenkranse a check for just under $4,000 a couple of weeks ago. ($3967.68, to be precise.) I have met Ms. Mazzaccari Rosenkranz on those now-rare occasions when business has taken me to the offices of the Town of New Paltz. I am a schmoozer, but I don’t know if I would recognize her if we were having coffee at adjacent tables at The Bakery, or passed each other while walking down Main Street. She is the New Paltz town clerk and tax collector, recently reelected for a fourth term. The check was for the total due by the end of January to meet my combined annual property tax obligation to the town, the county generally, and — curiously — separately, the county for highways, calculated out to three decimal places.

I send separate checks to pay my village taxes, $1523.02 in June, and school taxes, $8066.59 in September.

These are big numbers. At least they are for me and, I think, most of my neighbors. And I’m paying closer attention now that I write one check for each of these governments — a lump sum, instead of monthly through an escrow account at the Ulster Savings Bank. In fact, when you find people talking about taxes on the community app Nextdoor, it is almost always property taxes that are on their minds, not as much those on income or sales. That’s probably because the latter are more closely linked to their ability to pay, are paid over time in relatively small amounts and are collected at the time of the transaction or “withheld” before the taxpayer ever touches the money.

It is gospel among local politicians of all stripes that property taxes are consistently a top-of-mind consideration for a very high proportion of county voters. That’s why containing property tax growth has been the number one priority for decades for whatever party has controlled county government in Kingston. This year’s proud claim: “the lowest county property tax level in over a decade.”

Some years ago, the county government figured out that if it used 8 ½-by-14 paper rather than 8 ½-by-11, it had space to add not only an “informational message” but also a second page when it mailed out its and the towns’ property tax bills — yes, mailed, still — without needing to add a second stamp to cover the postage. The message was familiar:

By far the largest proportion of property tax goes to support school districts (68 percent), more than five times what is collected annually to pay for county government (12 percent), and the state forces counties (mandates them) to spend in a wide variety of areas without providing the funds necessary to do so. Ulster said this year in its tax bill enclosure that “approximately 64.2 percent” of county expenses are “mandated.”
But schools don’t collect sales tax, nor do they have access under state law to the variety of alternative revenue sources that counties do. And as the mandate argument is made, what actually comprises a mandate is often left undefined. And do the Democratic/liberal majorities currently running Ulster really not want to be thrown in the social programs briar patch that makes up much of what currently comprises much of mandated county spending? Do they want to cut staffing levels at the county jails established to assure the safety and security of prisoners and correctional personnel? Do they want to risk underfunding employees’ pensions? Do they want less resourced defendants to go without counsel when charged with a crime? Do they really want an end to tax exemptions not linked to local functions or priorities imposed by the state without local agreement — like the one I get for my military service?

And how is the burden of mandates linked to the $66,409,425 in “County aid” and $318,000 in “Town aid” reported on my tax bill? Is its inclusion the result of an offsetting state mandate?

On the other hand, the information conveyed on and with my tax bill does leave some of my questions unanswered about the administration of the property tax and who bears its burden. For example:

Wouldn’t it be more efficient for the county to have a single property tax levy annually, administered on a single cycle with costs shared, for all the local governments that rely on this revenue source?
Would alternative standards for sharing of sales tax (and perhaps other major established local revenue sources) facilitate greater equity in distributing county residents’ property tax burden?
Should we levy the property tax on the basis of properties’ full value, rather than on its partial (assessed) value. Doesn’t current practice just confuse some property owners and make it harder for them to compare the fairness of their level of tax liability with those of their neighbors?
Doesn’t it trick people into accepting unfair taxation because while they think they are benefitting, they are in fact the unwitting victims of unequal treatment?

Just asking.

The author is a former professor and dean at SUNY New Paltz and chaired the county's Charter Revision Commission, among many other accomplishments. To read more about him, click here.