A sad Christmas for abandoned animals

To the editor:

I had occasion the other evening to visit the SPCA in Rock Hill, something I rarely do because it’s uncomfortable for me to see all the innocent and loving animals in cages. (Although the alternative would probably be worse.)

I have lived in Sullivan County over 25 years, and I am still stunned at the lack of support and oversight exercised by the county government for this necessary and worthwhile organization. It is shameful for all of us who live here.

The SPCA is currently overwhelmed with animals that have been abandoned and abused by their “caregivers,” and the local support is simply not there.

I am asking everyone out there to demand from your representatives that they exercise their responsibility and ensure the county does more, much more, in the way of money and oversight for the SPCA. The loving and desperate dogs and cats there have been deserted by all of us—they are the responsibility of all of us. Please, at this holiday time, open your hearts and homes. Visit and take old blankets, towels, cleaning supplies, newspapers and a little love. It is so important and will be so appreciated.

Earth angel

To the editor:

At this Christmas season, we want to say how grateful we are for the Delaware Youth Center’s “earth angel,” and for the 100 truckloads of dirt that were delivered to our fields in Callicoon after the April floods. To all the truck drivers, the heavy equipment people who loaded and moved the dirt, but most especially the family who donated the dirt, we’d like to say thank you—we honestly couldn’t have done it without you.

Your generosity gave us the motivation and momentum we needed to clean up and make the center better than ever. People came from far and wide to help. Girl Scouts and day care providers held a bake sale and many people worked the spaghetti dinner or donated items for the silent auction. Others donated cash, goods, their time and services for the many other events which were held to aid in our recovery.

To all of you: we are grateful. Your kindness and generosity has been overwhelming. Have a safe and happy holiday season.

Setting the record straight on Neversink

Recently, the Sullivan County Legislature adopted the provisions of RPTL, Sect. 847, the so called “large parcel” legislation. I would like to correct several inaccuracies and misunderstandings that have been generated by this action.

First of all, there is the fallacy that somehow the county legislature’s actions were made without notifying the affected area, in this case, the Town of Neversink. In fact, not only the county, but also New York State contacted the Town of Neversink on numerous occasions in both 2004 and 2005, all prior to the November 1, 2005 deadline for a decision by the county or the Tri-Valley School District regarding this issue. In fact, it has been discussed off and on for the last year or so by officials from Sullivan County and the Town of Neversink. This year, the county was again put on notice by New York State regarding this issue and the extremely low equalization rate on property being assessed in the Town of Neversink. The county legislature at a meeting of the Real Property Tax Committee discussed the issue, with the town supervisor and a member of the town board present. Following that, a meeting of the Supervisors’ Association of Sullivan County was held where the issue was again discussed in public with Town of Neversink and Sullivan County officials present. This all happened before the county legislature took action on this issue.

There is also the contention that this issue has caused a 74 percent tax increase in the Town of Neversink. Again, this is not the case, and anyone who took a little time to do basic research would have seen it.

Due to the extremely low equalization rate in the Town of Neversink, the county tax rate would be increasing in Neversink at the rate of 25 percent even if the county legislature had done nothing.

By law the county tax must be spread fairly so that every property in the county having the same fair- market value pays approximately the same amount of county taxes. If every town in the county assessed all property in the town based on each property’s actual fair-market value, there would be no problem. However, some towns assess at different percentages of fair-market value. As a result, a house having a fair market value of $100,000 could be assessed for $100,000 in one town, $50,000 in a second town and $25,000 in a third town. In order for the county to spread its tax fairly, the state produces an equalization rate for each town. In the example above, the first town would have an equalization rate of 100, the second town would have an equalization of 50 and the third town would have one of 25.

If the county had not adopted the so-called “large-parcel” methodology, someone owning a house having a fair market value of $100,000 in Neversink would continue to pay less in county taxes than anyone owning a home having that same value in the other towns in the county.

I would also like to point out that the increase due to the large-parcel legislation is only on the county portion of the property tax bill and has no impact on Neversink town or school tax rates.

The notion is also circulating that somehow the actions of the county legislature have something to do with the county budget or the need by the county to raise more money. This is simply not true. Each year the county raises a certain amount of money through property taxes. This property-tax levee is apportioned among the towns based on the equalization rates that are set for each town. These rates, in turn, are set by the state based on the relationship of assessed value versus the actual value of real property in each town. Regardless of whether or not the county had enacted the large-parcel legislation, the same amount of money would be raised through the property tax levee countywide. The large-parcel legislation simply changes the apportionment of that levee among the towns. As previously noted, under the large-parcel enactment, 14 towns in the county will see a decrease in real property taxes and the town of Neversink an increase.

The fallacy has also been put forth that somehow this action by the county legislature is unfair or is tearing communities apart. What is actually unfair is the campaign of misinformation that is being conducted to distract the attention of many folks from what is really going on regarding the assessing function in the Town of Neversink and how that may be contributing to the problems they are now facing with the City of New York. It was and continues to be the case that this decision by the county legislature was based on simple fairness. It was not fair that every other taxpayer in Sullivan County should have for years had to pay higher property taxes than they should have on comparable properties while those same properties in Neversink paid less. By taking the action that we did, the county legislature simply took the position that properties of the same value should pay approximately the same amount of county taxes, regardless of what town they are located in.

I have stated publicly that I would be willing to sit down with the Town of Neversink and have a frank discussion on this issue over the course of the next year. These discussions should include our state representatives as well. I agree with the argument that if New York State thought that the large-parcel methodology is the best method to use they should have mandated that action and not left it as a local option. It was, however, our decision to make and we made it.

Hopefully, all involved can work together honestly and openly over the next year. This can only happen, however, in a climate where facts rather than political calculations are the basis on which decisions are made.