RESOLUTION TO RELEVY UNPAID UTILITY BILLS & PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

Village Law §11-1172 (water rents) and §14-1410 (sewer rents) authorize villages to collect unpaid utility charges as a lien on real property and to add them to the next tax levy, but typically condition that authority on prior written notice to the property owner and, in some formulations, a lien filing. The resolution recites that the Board reviewed the delinquent list but does not document that affected account holders received the notice required before a relevy can occur. Counsel should confirm which specific statutory provision(s) govern water and sewer relevy in Red Hook's case, verify that all notice and lien-filing steps were completed before the April 27, 2026 cutoff, and confirm that the listed accounts are eligible under those sections.

The resolution references Village Code §165-1 and Resolution 2 of 2026 as the basis for property maintenance charges, but it does not cite the specific General Municipal Law or Village Law section that authorizes converting those charges into a tax lien or relevy. GML §5-524 and Village Law §6-628 are potential bases for relevy of sidewalk-clearance charges, but whether Red Hook's local code fully implements those provisions and satisfies all procedural prerequisites (notice, right to cure, formal lien filing) for all 10 parcels should be confirmed by counsel before the levy is transmitted to the assessor.

New York's Real Property Tax Law and related social-services statutes sometimes impose additional procedural steps or exemption protections for owner-occupants facing property-tax consequences of utility nonpayment. While this is not typically a bar to relevy, confirming that no account holder has a pending hardship application or exemption status would reduce the risk of a challenge. Counsel should verify whether any such protections apply to the specific accounts included in the $16,887.25 and $3,030.75 totals.

OSC's 'Practice of Internal Controls' guide (Section 4, Billed Receivables – User Charges) recommends that local governments maintain written collection procedures, document the aging of outstanding receivables, and ensure that the officer certifying the delinquent list is separate from the officer who processed the original billings. The resolution states the Board 'reviewed the relevy list and compared it to the complete list of unpaid customer utility accounts,' but does not specify what supporting documentation (e.g., aged trial balance, signed clerk certification) was presented. Retaining that documentation in the Board's files would align with OSC best practice and support the record in the event of a taxpayer challenge.

While the WHEREAS clauses state that the Board reviewed and compared the delinquent lists, there is no recitation that affected property owners received written notice of the impending relevy or had an opportunity to contest errors before the payment deadline closed. A brief recital in the resolution—or a supporting exhibit in the meeting record—documenting the notice process would strengthen the procedural record and reduce exposure to due-process challenges from property owners who dispute specific amounts. This is a record-keeping concern rather than a clear statutory deficiency, but counsel should confirm whether notice is independently required by any applicable statute or local code provision.

Resolutions that impose monetary obligations on specific identified parcels are better supported when the full list of affected properties and amounts is either appended as an exhibit or incorporated by reference with a statement that the list is on file with the Village Clerk. Without this, there is no clear link between the adopted resolution and the specific 52 accounts totaling $19,918.00 that will actually appear on the 2026–2027 tax roll. The Board should confirm that a signed, dated list was part of the meeting record before the resolution was adopted.