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

860-524-6501

August 29, 2005

 

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

 

 

WELCOME TO THE 55th  EDITION OF

 

 

 

TAX TALK

 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/pd/

 

 

 

The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations, Inc. has a wealth of talent as exemplified by Flo Stahl, who serves on FCTO’s Board and heads the Avon Taxpayers Association.   Read Flo’s Letter to the Editor which appeared in Northeast Magazine in response to an article on our growing property taxes and revaluation….

 

Flo Stahl, Avon Taxpayers Association

Subject:  Flo’s Letter to the Editor – Northeast Magazine

Letter to the Editor:     Don't blame the messenger, ("A Shocking Assessment," Aug. 7, 2005), just follow the money. Vision Appraisal, like any other appraisal company, is merely the hired hand in an ongoing struggle to capture more real estate revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.
Why does the City of Branford need more revenue? Because like most, if not all municipalities in Connecticut, Branford has operational costs
that exceed grand list growth. Why do these costs escalate beyond grand list growth? Because Branford, like most Connecticut municipalities pays for public education, the lion's share of its budget, almost exclusively through real estate taxes. Keeping pace with education costs and
personnel contracts will continue to put pressure on Branford's residential real estate base.       Rising education costs are not merely the by-product of unfunded  mandates, a frequently used smokescreen. Salaries, generous benefits,  perks, pensions, smaller class size, "special status" designations and top-heavy bureaucracies are not federally mandated. They result from decisions made by state legislators, unions and local boards without regard to their consequences. The question is not whether too many people are involved in public education or whether they are paid too much or too little. The question is whether the current situation is sustainable.        One great American ideal, that of universal, free public education is on a collision course with another great American ideal, that of private home ownership. Branford doesn't want to force people out of homes they love. Unless root causes are addressed, Branford and many other municipalities will have no choice.  Florence Stahl, Avon (Former member, Avon Town Council and Board of Finance; President, Avon Taxpayers Association.)  Read other interesting comments on this article which can be found at the following website …. http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-letters0821.artaug21,0,1799637.story and http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-letters0814.artaug14,0,3110361.story

The Courant Article which the aforementioned comments referred to is A SHOCKING ASSESSMENT, Published on August 7, 2005,.  Property taxes along the central Connecticut shoreline have doubled, tripled, even quadrupled over the past few years, hitting Branford, Guilford, Madison and other towns hard.   Welcome to the aftermath of the 2002 revaluation. As more of the state's towns turn to private companies to do their appraisals, the consequences can shake property owners to their….  View Article | Archives Home | Help | ctnow.com

 

 *****

 

Donna McCalla, ctjodi@sbcglobal.net

Hebron Dollars and Sense

Updated CT Tax Increase Comparisons and Budget Adoptions spreadsheets

August 13, 2005

Hi, all.  I apologize for the delay in releasing the updated Budget Adoptions spreadsheet and the CT Tax Increase Comparisons spreadsheet! 

As of today, we are down to 6 unapproved municipal budgets:  Canterbury, Coventry, New London, Middlebury, Watertown, and Westbrook.  Notice that New London has been removed from the “Approved at 2^nd vote” column and moved into the “Facing 3^rd vote” column as a result of LOT’s successful petitioning for a referendum, which apparently will be held sometime in September. All of these towns are facing their third referendum vote, with the exception of Coventry, which goes before voters for the fourth time on August 30.  The statewide average of all approved budgets at this point is at 4.35%.  The statewide average of budgets approved at first referendum (in those towns voting by referendum) is 3.98%.    There are several interesting trends in this year’s Budget Wars that you have probably already noticed.  First, the number of budgets passed on the first or second rounds of voting is shrinking, and the number requiring three or more votes is significantly growing.  Those who hold out for a fourth budget referendum are averaging 3.9%, bringing them in line with other state averages.    Second, this time last year, in mid-August 2004, there were only four municipal FY 2004-05 budgets that hadn’t passed:  Coventry, Watertown, Westbrook and Winsted.  This year there are six, which is a 50% increase.  Notice that Coventry, Watertown and Westbrook are still not passed this year.  I don’t believe it’s a “community culture” of just pulling the “No” lever; I think there are real financial concerns in those towns that remain unresolved year over year.  Third, two of the multiple budget votes recently passed (Sterling and Voluntown) were changed from a referendum form of voting to Town Meeting for their third vote, presumably because there was no money for a referendum.  Even though those budgets passed, they were by slim margins, and there was verbal discontent over changing back to the Town Meeting method of voting.  There has been a significant trend in Connecticut over the past four years for towns to change their method of budget voting from Town Meeting to Referendum; that trend will most likely accelerate.  OR, residents will start demanding that local government change to those forms with a solid track record in keeping spending and tax increases under control, such as BATs, BETs, and Common Councils.  While there are several other trends, the one that appears most significant is the emergence of third parties.  We’re seeing that this year in both Middlebury and New London, the third parties in those towns being comprised of members that have been heavily involved in the tax issues.   There is little doubt that Connecticut residents are facing some highly significant challenges regarding affordability, and if you were watching CNN this morning, you heard “Hartford, CT” specifically mentioned as one of the top 15 areas in the country that have been rated “most at risk” for a bubble burst in its housing market.    In the past, third parties have been viewed with skepticism.  That is no longer necessarily the case, if newspaper editorials, columns and letters to the editor in the past month are any indication.  There is no doubt that third parties in some towns have not always been successful, but in others, they have.  Frustration with the local property tax burden is growing, as evidenced by the larger number of budgets requiring multiple votes to pass their FY 2005-06 budgets, the vast number of budgets that passed this year by 100 votes or less, and especially those budgets that passed by 50 votes or less.  Don't forget:  Vernon IV, offering a 1.3% tax increase, passed by a mere 5 votes.  The November 2005 elections will be interesting, but unless the underlying issues are addressed, the November 2007 elections will be far more interesting….   

Any corrections, please let me know.  Thanks, Donna  (ARTICLE IS ATTACHED IN EXCEL)

*****

 

From:  Tom Picinich, New London City Council Candidate,

Independent- One New London, email:  tomellen8@yahoo.com

Subject:  View August 25, 2005 Eminent Domain Legislative Hearings

August 26, 2005

 

August 25 CT Legislative Hearings and Public Testimony on Eminent Domain are available for your viewing on the web.

Please note that you can fast forward or jump around and view portions of it simply by moving the scroll bar at the bottom.  To view, Click below:  http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ondemand.asp?search=eminent  A quick review of my notes found it particularly interesting (in order of presentation):  DECD and subsequent questioning by Committee members (lack of straight answers, knowledge of the success/failure of this and other DECD projects, lack of financial assurances or oversight for the spending of our tax dollars, and Rep Googins questioning DECD); Rep Steve Mikutel; Testimony from the many eminent domain abuse activists, property owners, associations, taxpayer orgs, and Tom Picinich; Mayor Lloyd Beachy and Committee questioning; Attorney Scott Sawyer and Committee questioning

 

*****

 

Planning and Development Committee

Proposed Eminent Domain Legislation

LCO 7. AN ACT LIMITING THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PUBLIC USES.  (pdf)

LCO 14. AN ACT CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY MUNICIPALITIES BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

 

 

LCO 15. AN ACT REQUIRING THE APPROVAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF A MUNICIPALITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN.  (pdf)

LCO 16. AN ACT CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY MUNICIPALITIES BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

LCO 17. AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

LCO 18. AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

LCO 19. AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROCESS FOR EMINENT DOMAIN BY MUNICIPALITIES FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

LCO 21. AN ACT CONCERNING EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURES FOR MUNICIPAL REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.  (pdf)

 

*****

Friday, Sept. 16, 2005

 

Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT

12:00-1:30 p.m.

State Capitol – Judiciary Room (3d floor)

Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT

Free and open to the public.  Complimentary lunch will be provided

 

RSVP:  Brian Freeman, bfreeman@rc.com, (860) 275-8310

 

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies,

Hartford Chapter, presents

 

 

“EMINENT DOMAIN AFTER KELO:

 

WHAT LIMITS?  WHO DECIDES?”

a panel discussion and debate featuring

 

 

 

 

Moderator:

Atty. Dwight Merriam, Robinson & Cole LLP, Hartford, CT

(co-editor, “Eminent Domain Use and Abuse:  Kelo in Context”)

 

*****

 

Will Bush Ever Veto a Spending Bill?, Highway Robbery: $286 Billion

by John Berthoud, Posted Aug 12, 2005

The official cost of the new highway bill is $286.4 billion, which is a record. But maybe the most shocking aspect is the pork. Nearly 6,500 pork-barrel projects are stuffed into the bill. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan vetoed that year’s highway bill because he (rightly) objected to the inclusion of a “mere” 152 member-requested projects for their districts. That politics trumped good public policy in this year’s bill can be seen maybe most clearly in Alaska, where Republican porkers—Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young—managed to secure the fourth highest number of earmarks for the third least populous state. Continued at the following website:  http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8522

*****

Jim Hoover, jim.hoover@sbcglobal.net

Vernon Taxpayers Association

Subject:  What is A billion?

The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion," casually, think about whether or not you want the politician spending your tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases. A billion seconds ago it was 1973.; b.  A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.; A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age; A billion days ago no-one walked on two feet on earth;  A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government spends it. Now ....have a nice day...!!

*****

 

 

Robert Green, rgreen619@snet.net

Good morning, Sue.Don't know if you got this.  Yankee Institute did a snapshot of the breakdown of education spending in our land of rocks and honey.  Some pretty sobering numbers here.  D. Dowd Muska was supposed to be on Ray Dunaway's radio show (WTIC 1080) at 9:00 this morning.  Got his e-mail too late to tune in.  I'm sure he had some good info. Bob

The article can be found at the following website:  http://www.yankeeinstitute.org/files/2/pdf/2%20-%20govt_schools.pdf

 

*****

 

Marvin Edelman, marvined@earthlink.net

Willimantic Taxpayers Association and FCTO Board Member

Dear Sue:  In an attempt to have Republican stand for something, our local group approved the attached Declaration of Principles.  The primary intent was to give the party some parameters, foundation and guidelines when enacting specific proposals, strategies and concrete ways to resolve on-going problems.   Needless to say, Principle #3 was ignored by our U.S.Supreme Court.  The old Jeffesonian/Hamiltonian debate over strict vs loose interpretation of the Constitution has been given a new dimension by the current Supreme Court    Cordially,   Marvin

 

 

WINDHAM  REPUBLICAN PARTY DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

 

MISSION:  To nominate and elect men and women to public office who agree to represent the Principles and Policies of the Windham Republican Party

 

BASIC PRINCIPLES:

 

Public office is a public trust that requires the highest ethical standards and conduct from every elected and appointed official.

 

The individual political liberties of the people will be preserved only if the electorate demands that Government abide by the Constitutional limitations of its authority.

 

Private property has an inviolate right to be secure from Government encroachment.

 

A fair and open market economy that respects private enterprise and the law of supply and demand is fundamental to enhancing personal economic freedom and promoting economic development in the community.

 

Taxation must be based on the community’s ability to pay and allocated with fiscal responsibility and accountability.

 

Majoritarian governance shall not infringe on the civil liberties of the minorities.

 

Every citizen has the civic duty to vote in order to determine the will of the people.

*****

 

Kudos to John Kane newmilfordcitizen@earthlink.net the New Milford resident who brought the following Ethics complaint…  Susan Kniep

 

A call for dismissal, New Milford Times, By: Nancy Barnes 08/19/2005

Terming the complaint brought against his client a travesty, Attorney William Wellman at the ethics public hearing on Wednesday moved that the New Milford Ethics Commission dismiss the charges against builder and Board of Finance member John Spatola, in an evening which ended with Board of Finance Chairman George McLaughlin's testimony that the BOF motion for which Mr. Spatola is on trial was, in fact, his idea. 

 

"I move to dismiss. I move that this travesty end," said an impassioned Mr. Wellman early into the fifth session of the public hearing of Kane v. Spatola.    John Kane is the New Milford resident who brought the ethics charges against Mr. Spatola, alleging that a vote he cast prohibiting the town from purchasing open space later purchased by builder Tom Pilla, with whom Mr. Spatola has had business associations, violated New Milford's ethics code.   Following the purchase by Mr. Pilla of 162 acres from the United Water Co., Mr. Spatola eventually bought a small number of lots on them. He then built houses on them, and sold them.  Mr. Wellman's action followed testimony by Town Attorney D. Randall DiBella that was given in a special meeting prior to the hearing.   In a procedural meeting held in June before the public hearings got underway, Joseph Failla, the presiding officer at the public hearing, ruled that Mr. DiBella could not testify for Mr. Spatola, because his testimony might violate attorney-client privileges he held with town officials.  In a surprise move, Mr. DiBella appeared Wednesday evening in an unannounced special meeting prior to the hearing, where he testified that the town of New Milford's right to acquire the property for whose purchase Mr. Pilla had entered into contract on Jan. 3, 2002 would, according to his understanding of the state statutes, have expired 90 days after the utility company gave the town notice that it wanted to place the property on the market.   That testimony, which contradicts former Town Attorney Fred Baker's testimony that the town had a second period in which to purchase the land, put the end of the 90-day period in which the town could exercise its right to buy the land in August of 2001-well before June 5, 2002, which is the date of the finance board meeting at which Mr. Spatola cast the offending vote.   Following a May 29, 2002 meeting in which he received town council authorization, former Mayor Robert Gambino had attended a June 4, 2002 meeting of the commission of the state Department of Public Utilities, representing what his administration had claimed was the town's right to inform the state body that the town had not waived its right to purchase the United Water Co. tract.   "Doesn't a violation of the state statute make the actions of the Board of Finance moot?" Mr. Failla asked former Mayor Art Peitler, who is serving as counsel to the complainant, Mr. Kane.   Mr. Peitler said that Mr. Spatola, by dint of his business associations with Mr. Pilla, had violated the town's ethics code, regardless of whether the town still had the rights to acquire the water company tract.   "Based upon the facts and knowledge Mr. Spatola had, he violated the code of ethics ...He may have voted on good advice or bad advice, but that was unethical behavior," argued Attorney Peitler, as Mr. Failla, who called commission witnesses-the only witnesses heard on Wednesday-following Mr. Wellman's motion to dismiss.   In testimony from Mr. Pilla, who, unknown to Mr. Peitler, also appeared as a commission witness on Wednesday, Mr. Failla established that Mr. Spatola had no interest in San P Homes Inc., the venture through which Mr. Pilla later bought the United Water Co. tract, although Mr. Spatola had held a minority interest in two of Mr. Pilla's other companies, whose names were JTLC and Farm View.   Mr. Pilla also revealed that he had sold the two lots of the land he bought from the United Water Co. to his son, who sold them to Mr. Spatola. He also said Mr. Spatola and his son paid above market value for one lot of the water company tract they purchased jointly.   "This is the equivalent of blowing bubbles," Mr. Pilla said of the complaint against Mr. Spatola, following his testimony as a commission witness, when the Ethics Commission went into executive session to discuss procedural matters.  Mr. Failla said the commission will consider Mr. Wellman's motion to dismiss the complaint, which has resulted in the first public hearing of a town official in New Milford's history. He still must rule on whether the commission can conduct its deliberations on the motion to dismiss in executive session or, as Mr. Wellman argued, the commission must conduct all its deliberations in public.    The final dramatic touch in the long evening was the appearance of BOF Chairman Mr. McLaughlin as a commission witness, precipitated, again, by a request from Mr. Wellman.   Mr. McLaughlin told the commission that the BOF members regularly caucus before each meeting, at which time they elect a member to put forward motions.   He said the motion to preclude the town from buying open space, such as the United Water Co. tract, was his idea and that, on the night of June 5, 2002, Mr. Spatola was simply the Board of Finance member whom the BOF elected to put that proposal to a BOF vote.  The public hearing will resume Aug. 31, with another special meeting of the Ethics Commission scheduled for Aug. 24.

*****