Lake Forest sues over tax status

Local News

Discussion

PLEASE NOTE: There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

ALSO NOTE: Derisive name-calling of an individual or group will result in the entire comment being deleted. This includes the terms "stupid" and "idiot" and similar references.

Welcome to our new online comments feature. Before you can join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address.

Once you do, your comments will post after they have been reviewed by a moderator.

We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified, at the newspaper’s discretion, for a number of reasons. Here are some typical practices to avoid in trying to get your comment printed:

There is a 150 word maximum for comments. All comments greater than 150 words in length will be deleted in their entirety.

Don’t state as a fact something that is unsubstantiated or that our editors wouldn't know to be true.

Don’t presume someone’s guilt in a case when it hasn't been established by a court.

Don’t assail or impugn an identifiable individual or group. If you have that kind of criticism, sign your name and submit it as a Letter to the Editor. (There is some leeway on this in connection with public officials, but it is not unconditional.)

Don’t use profanity. This includes the term “tea bagger.”

Don’t be incendiary or tasteless. Those qualities are subjective, of course, and our editors will be the arbiters.

Do not identify yourself in the main content area of the article content form. Only by enforcing this rule can the moderators prevent unscrupulous commenters from falsely identifying themselves as someone they are not.

Don't type in all caps. It is considered the Internet equivalent of shouting.

In sports articles, do not criticize officiating.

Remember, moderators are not allowed to edit any article comments. If an article comment fails any of the above criteria, the entire comment will be deleted.

We monitor comments Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Approval of comments outside these times may be delayed.

comments powered by Disqus

December 3, 2008

City retirement facility objects to taxable status

By JOE LoTEMPLIO The Press Republican Sat May 15, 2010, 01:22 AM EDT

PLATTSBURGH — As expected, Lake Forest Senior Living Community Inc. has gone to court over its tax status.

Lake Forest attorneys recently filed a motion in State Supreme Court regarding the City of Plattsburgh's decision to put the retirement facility on the tax rolls.

The decision was made by the city's Board of Assessment Review, which is also named in the suit, after much debate over Lake Forest's mission.

THE ARGUMENTS
The city argues that the facility has built up a surplus of more than $2 million since it began operating in 1999.

The city also points to the fact that Lake Forest residents are not on public assistance and pay substantial monthly service fees to live there.

Lake Forest officials contend that the facility operates as a non-profit and is beneficial to the community.

They say that surplus funds that have been built up are designated to go back into the operation for improvements, as needed.

The city granted the facility tax-exempt status in 2004, when the property was turned over to Lake Forest from the Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corp.

It maintained that tax-exempt status until this October, when the Assessment Review Board made its ruling.

In court papers filed last month, Lake Forest contends that nothing has changed since 2004.

"The congregate living parcel remained on the 2008 tentative assessment roll as a property exempt from taxation, as it has since 2004," the court papers say.

"Moreover, consistent with recognizing the congregate living parcel to be tax exempt as a charitable use for the past four years, the assessor continued to classify the primary use of Lake Forest's congregate living parcel by Office of Real Property Services code 633, which denotes a property that is being 'used for the well-being of the community,' a 'welfare/homes for the aged' use."

The city maintains that Lake Forest is not a charity that should be tax-exempt.

"It appears and remains our opinion that, for a housing project to be exempted ... a large percentage of the clients or tenants must be in need of and receive a real and substantial charitable benefit," City Assessor Brian Dowling said in a statement.

ASSESSMENT PROTESTED
Lake Forest is also contesting the revaluation of the property this year. The parcel's value was increased from $2,750,000 to $5,415,400, a boost of $2,665,400.

"No further development took place on the congregate living parcel since the 2007 taxable status date to justify the near-doubling of the assessed value of the property," the lawsuit says.

Lake Forest's case is scheduled to be heard in State Supreme Court in Plattsburgh on Jan. 14, 2009.

E-mail Joe LoTemplio at: jlotemplio@pressrepublican.com