From:  Susan Kniep,  President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc.
Website:  http://ctact.org/
email:  fctopresident@ctact.org

860-524-6501

July 31, 2005

 

Review Previous Tax Talk Issues on our Website at  http://ctact.org/

 

WELCOME TO THE 54TH  EDITION OF 

 

 

TAX TALK

 

 

NOTE – REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON CCM

On July 28, 2005, CCM, Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, spoke in favor of Eminent Domain before the Planning and Development Committee of the State Legislature.  CCM is a municipal lobbying group which represents the CEOs of Towns which belong to it.  It is funded by taxpayers through their local municipal budgets.  On January 24, 2005 CCM issued the following Press Release, “The Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM) and 31 other state municipal leagues have filed a legal brief in the United States Supreme Court case seeking to preserve the right of cities and towns to acquire private property by eminent domain for economic development purposes.” The press release is continued at the following website….   http://www.ccm-ct.org/advocacy/2004-2005/012405.html .  CCM position on Eminent Domain is further stated within this website… http://www.ccm-ct.org/advocacy/2004-2005/012405.html.    I am asking for your help.  Please determine if your town is a member of CCM and what taxpayers in your town are paying for membership.  Please email this information to me at fctopresident@aol.com.  Thank you.  Susan Kniep

*******

 

From Tom Picinich of the Coalition to Save the Fort Trumbull Neighborhood This Monday night, August 1st at 7.00-8.00pm, a property rights rally against Eminent Domain Abuse will be held at the Waterford home of State Senator Andrea Stillman. The address is 5 Coolidge Court, Waterford, CT. The protest rally is organized by the Coalition to Save the Fort Trumbull Neighborhood, a group of New London neighbors that formed in 1999 in opposition to the destruction of a New London neighborhood in the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP).  We spoke with Senator Stillman on July 27th to request her support to:  1. let the Fort Trumbull property owners remain, 2. remove eminent domain power from the Ft Trumbull MDP, and  3. promptly enact restrictive legislation to prevent eminent domain for economic development.  Senator Stillman responded that she supports careful changes to CT eminent domain laws. And, that eminent domain for economic development is useful in cases of blight. She also blames the Rowland Administration.   All are encouraged to join and rally Senator Stillman for her support of these three property rights issues.  The Waterford Public Safety officials have requested we park our cars on ROBIN HILL ROAD (west side). Susette Kelo and the other Fort Trumbull property owners, as a result of the recent US Supreme Court ruling, will be present.   Contact or more info:  Tom Picinich, 28 Evergreen Avenue, New London, CT 06320, tpicinich@gmail.com   1-860-908-2665

 

*********

THE STATE GIVETH WHILE IT TAKETH AWAY….

 

WHILE SUSETTE KELO AND OTHERS ARE AT RISK OF LOSING THEIR HOMES IN NEW LONDON, THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTED TODAY THAT Sixteen park supervisors with the Department of Environmental Protection are living for free in state-owned houses valued as high as $562,000 in exchange for duties such as making sure park gates are opened and closed and sidewalks are shoveled.  The Hartford Courant Article captioned … Agency Defends Deal For Park Supervisors and written by DAVE ALTIMARI And KATIE MELONE, Courant Staff Writers continues at this website:   http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-dephomes0731.artaug01,0,5613238.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking

 

*********

HERE’S ANOTHER LAND GRAB CASE

 

From Pat Snyder   Snyderpate@aol.com

United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit,   DOCKET NO.04-5520, PAT SNYDER AND ALEXIS DAVIES PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS -VS- RONALD PUGLIESE AND PETER BOSCO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES Case scheduled for Oral Argument August 4, 2005 Citizens redressing grievances of local government in Naugatuck, Connecticut  ALLEGEDLY  targeted, harassed, and retaliated by local officials, and law enforcement with DELIBERATE intent to blight the Snyder Family property, in addition to demonize and criminalize Snyder, Davies, and others.  Alleging violation of 14th Amendment by apparent official misconduct  for purpose intended  to create, and fabricate a crime file, public record, economic obsolescence, blight, and acting as a  pre-cursor to further aid and abet the Borough of Naugatuck, and the Naugatuck Economic Development Scheme for  FUTURE economic enrichment of local officials with a certain developer against the Snyder interests..  This case over-looked, and ignored by media, is important to all property owners in 2nd Circuit Court Jurisdiction .  If you think law enforcement, and locals have gone too far in land-grabbing, you need to know what’s going on in Snyder, Davies v. Pugliese, Boscoe  and the NY 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Your FUTURE, AND YOUR FAMILY’S FUTURE can be impacted by this outcome.  The plaintiffs are represented by John R. Williams, and Norm Pattis of New Haven Connecticut, for further details please contact: Appellant Counsel: Norm Pattis @ 203-393-30173

 

*********

 

 

 Raise Plan Splits Board

Selectmen Seek Further Review

July 28, 2005, By KATIE MELONE, Courant Staff Writer

 

SIMSBURY -- Selectmen are contemplating a salary package for department heads that calls for up to a 6 percent raise for the current fiscal year, sparking a lively debate for the second year in a row.

 

 

 

CONGRATULATIONS

 

MIKE GUARCO

and 

The Connecticut Municipal Consortium for Fiscal Responsibility 

Mike has successfully assembled officials throughout Connecticut who are working to reform State Mandates to include Binding Arbitration.  Mike and his group have received public recognition for their efforts and are to be commended for their work on behalf of taxpayers throughout Connecticut.  Please read the latest article on Mike  by the Journal Inquirer of Manchester which  follows…..

By Tom Breen, Journal Inquirer, July 12, 2005

After a budget season which saw voters across Connecticut reject municipal budgets in referendum votes, a new group is planning to lobby state politicians to change policies that it says lie at the source of taxpayers’ discontent.  The Connecticut Municipal Consortium for Fiscal Responsibility, made up of elected town boards from across the state, is calling for changes to laws concerning binding arbitration, the prevailing wage, and mandates from the state government.  The bipartisan group, which began last December and which has earned the endorsement of 60 towns and 75 municipal boards so far, says towns which previously saw annual budget growth of between 2 and 3 percent now see budgets increase by between 4 and 5 percent a year.  "People are rebelling," Michael Guarco, chairman of the group and also of the Granby Board of Finance, said Wednesday.  Budget growth means tax increases, he said, and this year dozens of towns rejected budgets at least once in referendums, including rejections in Vernon, East Windsor, Ellington, Somers, and Coventry.  But it isn’t only voters who are frustrated with the situation, he said. Local officials, who have worked to add programs and services to towns, have had to reduce or eliminate them in response to defeated referendums.  "Municipal officials are sitting here watching the demise of local government services because we have to deal with unbridled compensation," Guarco said. The goal of the organization is to have at least 100 towns and 150 municipal boards vote to endorse its platform, which it says will give a unified voice to its concerns that will be hard to ignore at the state capitol.  The group argues that binding arbitration laws currently favor public employee unions, meaning annual increases in salaries and benefits that are hard for towns to match. The group seeks to "level the playing field" when it comes to negotiating contracts with unions.  Additionally, it wants the General Assembly not to enact any more mandates on towns until the state legislature provides full funding for the mandates already on the books.  Finally, the group wants changes made to prevailing wage laws, which require public construction and repair projects to meet a minimum standard of compensation designed to mirror similar projects in the private sector.  "That law shouldn’t be on the books," Guarco said. "It’s a Depression-era anachronism."  State labor union officials, though, are wary of such calls for change, saying they can often camouflage attacks on gains made by workers.  Lori Pelletier, secretary treasurer of the state AFL-CIO, said Wednesday that such objections have been brought up before the legislature in previous years, but legislators haven’t found much substance in them.  "There are a lot of myths out there," she said. "In binding arbitration, municipalities win more often than unions do. If anyone should want to change arbitration laws, it’s the unions."  Guarco said the group’s goals, if met, would actually help unions, by allowing towns to hire more employees.  "Because we’re losing programs and services, we’re losing people," he said. "We’re not so much anti-union, but we think collective bargaining laws are a big part of the problem."  State Sen. Edith G. Prague, D-Columbia, co-chairwoman of the state legislature’s Labor and Public Employees Committee, said today that binding arbitration had been studied by the legislature in 2004.  A report by the Office of Legislative Research found that arbitrators side with municipalities in roughly half the cases, and with unions in the other half, Prague said.  "The process we currently have is fair," she said.  However, she added that she would be glad to meet with the members of the new group and hear their concerns.

*******

 Donna McCalla, ctjodi@sbcglobal.net

Subject:  Budget Adoptions Update (HAVE ATTACHED EXCEL SPREADSHEET)

July 15, 2005  

 

Hi, all.  I am attaching only the updated Budget Adoptions spreadsheet since there were only two budget votes this week.  As expected, Westbrook II went down in flames; Sterling III passed.  However, controversy surrounds the Sterling III vote (as predicted), and I expect there to be backlash next year for the FY 2006-07 budget in Sterling.  Specifically:  the first two budget votes in Sterling were by referendum, both of which were soundly defeated.  Then, officials decided they didn’t have the $800 needed to conduct a third referendum and instead called for a Town Meeting on the third vote (which was hotly disputed at the Town Meeting).  Charters…. they are all so different in Connecticut, and give flexibility to some, none to others, and questions to most….   Something jumped out this week in the data, which probably should have been noticed some time ago.  Of the towns voting by referendum, those towns that passed on the first vote averaged a tax increase of 3.98%.  It has always been our prediction that the ceiling for referendum votes this year would be Vote Four, which has proven true.  Interestingly, the average tax increase for Vote Four towns is 3.99%.    When dealing with data (and not local emotions), there is rarely a situation of “coincidence.”  Those towns voting by referendum that have been able to hold out to Round Four ultimately end up with the same average amount as those towns who come in with reasonable amounts passed on Round One.  Had those multi-referendum towns been presented with that 4% increase, it would have saved a lot of towns a lot of money, time, and frustration – and referendum costs.   The average statewide Grand List growth was approximately 2.56%.  The average statewide local approved tax increase (with all multiple referenda factored out) is currently 4.41% (regardless of voting method, and budgets passed by Town Meeting are almost always higher than budgets passed by other funding authority methods.)  The numbers all make sense.   A local official in a town that recently suffered its latest budget defeat was quoted in the newspapers last week:  “It appears we have a more educated voter.”  (That’s one for the category of “He didn’t really say that, did he??”)  The reality is:  residents are making themselves more educated over budget issues because the economic pressures are coming from all angles:  higher transportation costs to get to employment, higher home fuel oil and electricity, higher health insurance co-pays and premiums, higher costs of sending children to college, higher costs for necessary home repairs, higher grocery bills… yet, the average Connecticut resident is receiving minimal, if any, pay raises to offset all of these higher costs.   The final numbers on average tax increases across Connecticut are not likely to change with the remaining 8 unapproved town budgets.  However, the issues which drive those 8 unapproved budgets – and the growing trend toward multiple referenda – remain unresolved.   Any updates, please let me know. Thanks, Donna

*******

 

Frank Twohill,  franktwohill@hotmail.com

Branford R.T.M. Member, R-1^st District
July 19, 2005

RE:  Milford Eminent Domain Ordinance Proposed for Branford

I appreciate getting these newsletters so much. I introduced to the Branford R.T.M. on July 13 the same Ordinance that Milford passed July 11 concerning eminent domain. There is widespread support for it in Branford from both political parties -- in fact Richard Sullivan, a Democrat and candidate for Selectman this fall -- also introduced an eminent domain proposal. I will keep you informed.  Keep up the great work. Frank

*******

 

Helen Gorman, HRGroman

New Britain Taxpayers Association

Subject:  Letter to Govenror Rell

July 13, 2005

Hi   Susan:    Thought you might like to see our letter to the Gov. on July 6, 2005

Dear Gov. Rell:   The Citizens Property Owners Assn. of New Britain, the oldest taxpayer group in the State, commends you on your stand for "justified" spending on the Bonding proposal for 2006 and 2007.  We too are concerned about the amount of proposed bonding.  While some consider these monies a "windfall", the high interest on the millions and millions in bonds is now killing taxpayers!     The CPOA recently learned there is no paper trail or 'checks and balances' on bonded monies that are submitted to requesting agencies.  We also learned that so-called non-profit groups requested and received bonded monies that included costly administrative costs.  We understand using these funds for administrative costs is illegal!     Therefore, the CPOA respectfully asks of you and the Bonding Commission, that all bonding requests be itemized and carefully screened before they are granted.  Also, that a follow-up notarized report be submitted by recipients showing exactly how allocated funds were used.  We look for the elimination of loopholes and unjustified spending.     Your response to our concerns would be greatly appreciated.     Sincerely, Mrs. Ann Mikulak, Pres. CPOA     (From Helene R. Groman, Secry, CPOA)

*******

 

Marvin Edelman, marvined@earthlink.net

Windham Taxpayers Association

Subject:  WINDHAM REPUBLICAN PARTY DENOUNCES EMINENT DOMAIN DECISION BY UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

July 13, 2005

 

At a special meeting held on July 12, 2005 the Windham Republican Town Committee unanimously denounced the United States Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision in Kelo v City of New London.  The Republican Party has issued a call to its local board of selectmen, representatives to the state legislature, 2^nd district congressman and United States senators to enact local, state and federal legislation that will protect private property rights and reverse the Supreme Court decision.  As a result of the wide-spread public dissent over the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court, various organizations throughout the country have requested that the Supreme Court rehear the case while other organizations have called for impeachment of the majority justices or an amendment to the United States Constitution that would undo the damage that would be caused by property seizures in the name of economic development.  The Milford, CT, Board of Alderman has already proposed a series of ordinances that would prohibit the seizure of residential property through eminent domain for use in privately-owned or controlled economic development.

Following the notice by state legislative leaders that they plan to hold public hearings on the use of eminent domain for economic development projects, Governor M. Jodi Rell has announced that she is asking municipalities to forestall any eminent domain proceedings until the state legislature has acted.  At the July 5 rally in front of New London city, a delegation from Windham joined over 500 protestors to voice their outrage over the Supreme Court’s dictatorial ruling and applauded the support that the legal team from the Institute for Justice has been providing the New London homeowners in their struggle to keep their homes.