Commissioner settles tax dispute between adjacent districts |
On Board Online • June 12, 2017
By Kimberly A. Fanniff
Senior Staff Counsel
Some residential properties lie in more than one school district. When the property owner has school-age children, Education Law section 3203 entitles the property owner to designate which district will be considered the district of residence for purposes of school attendance.
After such a designation is made, sometimes disputes can arise between school districts related to tax issues.
In a case of first impression, the commissioner of education recently settled a novel question involving taxation. In Appeal of the Board of Education of the Edgemont Union Free School District, the commissioner ruled that a designated school district is entitled to receive taxes collected by another district, but only during periods in which the designated district is furnishing instructional services. That is, if a child attends neither school district and is receiving no form of educational services or support, no tax transfer is appropriate.
In this case, the Edgemont school board sought to recover taxes from the Greenburgh Central School District for seven different border properties. The Greenburgh district had not remitted taxes it received from those property owners to Edgemont because children from those homes were no longer attending Edgemont schools.
Edgemont argued that Greenburgh remained responsible for remitting the taxes collected on the border properties. It cited a prior commissioner's decision, Appeal of the Board of Education of Syosset Central School District. In that case, the commissioner determined that when a student from a border dissected property is attending a nonpublic school, the designated district is required to provide special education services, transportation, textbooks and dual enrollment services pursuant to Education Law section 3602-c. Concurrently, a non-designated district is required to remit any taxes collected from those properties to the designated district.
Edgemont argued that Syosset stands for the proposition that even when children are not attending the designated school district, taxes must be remitted. The commissioner rejected Edgemont's argument because no school-age children were receiving any form of educational services from Edgemont. In contrast, the district in Syosset provided services to the nonpublic students in the form of transportation, textbooks and a proportionate share of health services funding. The commissioner reviewed the legislative history of section 3203 and did not find anything offering explanation for how the statute should be interpreted regarding such disputes.
Greenburgh argued that the plain language of the statute limits the remittance of taxes to districts that are both designated and providing instructional services, and the commissioner agreed. The law states that a non-designated school district " . . . shall pay to the district designated, in which such children are received and instructed, the amount of tax on such property so levied and collected. If any such district shall fail or refuse on demand to pay the amount of any tax so collected, the school authorities of the district designated and furnishing the instructional service may recover the amount in an action therefor."
When interpreting a statute, a court or quasi-judicial authority (such as the commissioner) must rely on the plain meaning of words in a statute, as long as the language is clear and unambiguous. According to the commissioner, the natural meaning of the phrases "in which such children are received and instructed" and "designated and furnishing the instructional service" creates two conditions that must be satisfied before a designated school district may recover school taxes. It must be (a) the designated district and (b) furnishing instruction.
The commissioner found that this interpretation is consistent with the overall purpose of the statute which is intended to provide for selection of a school district for the attendance of children. Therefore, she dismissed Edgemont's appeal.